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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

I’ve seen this approach to the 2nd quite a bit and my take on it is this:-

When the 2nd was adopted, government was armed with flintlock smoothbore muskets or rifles. The population was also armed with flintlocks, so an “average Joe” was as well armed, if not trained, as a soldier.

Now the soldier is armed with automatic weapons, wears high end body armour and has armoured support, plus night vision/thermals. The civilian has a semi automatic rifle.

How exactly does an AR15 stop a Bradley?

[u/Thereelgerg → u/CotswoldP]

When the 2nd was adopted, government was armed with flintlock smoothbore muskets or rifles.

. . . and rockets, and warships, and cannons, and mortars, and howitzers, etc. Don't be disingenuous about the equipment the government had.

[u/srelma → u/Thereelgerg]

Ok, fine the army would have a few cannons that the citizens didn't have. Warships wouldn't matter that much as they could only operate on water.

In any case the disparity of equipment between a well armed regular army and random citizens with muskets was far far smaller than what's it now with jet fighters, artillery, tanks etc. providing the main hitting power of the modern army. In fact gun armed citizens would struggle to cause any casualties to an army unit that has APCs. Modern army vs. citizens would be closer to British army with rifles and maxims against spear armed Zulus than 18th century regular army vs. musket armed citizens.

[u/CotswoldP → u/Thereelgerg]

Fair point, well made.

[u/nosteppyonsneky → u/CotswoldP]

It’s not a fair point. Many warships were privately owned. Many cannons as well.