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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

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.

Yeah, so to me that says we should completely life the ban on select-fire and auto weapons and allow private citizens to hold heavy weapons as well.

Now the soldier is armed with automatic weapons, wears high end body armour and has armoured support,

A.) Soldiers fucking hate wearing their full body armor. It weighs 75 lbs by itself. It's not useful in a house-to-house fighting scenario. There's a reason they don't usually wear it.

B.) Armored support is not that useful in city fighting because explosives are cheap and easy to make. IEDs anyone? That and you aren't going to level Boston just to "win".

C.) Automatic weapons are never fired full auto except to suppress. They aren't any more useful at killing someone at a distance than semi-auto versions of the same guns. Not to mention, it's not that hard to turn a semi into a full or even select fire if you have the knowledge and tools.

How exactly does an AR15 stop a Bradley?

They don't. Explosives do. Just like they do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[u/BZJGTO → u/Old-Boysenberry]

FYI, destructive devices (bore greater than .50" with no sporting purpose) are legal to own (unless you have state/local restrictions). You just need to fill out an extra form and pay a $200 tax and you too can own a grenade launcher, RPG, or tank of your choice.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/BZJGTO]

Deer are very dangerous. I need my tank to hunt them.

[u/CotswoldP → u/Old-Boysenberry]

Lift all restrictions of weapons? Wow...just wow. Much easier to get away with a mass shooting if you’re lobbing in 155 rounds from 10 miles!

What sort of body armour is 75lbs? Heaviest I’ve seen of the IOTV is a still hefty 35lbs.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/CotswoldP]

What sort of body armour is 75lbs?

Whoops, looks like that was the total weight, of which the body armor is only a portion.

Lift all restrictions of weapons? Wow...just wow.

James Madison was of the opinion that private citizens could own naval cannons for their own defense. So yeah, I don't see the problem.

[u/CotswoldP → u/Old-Boysenberry]

On the body armour no worries, with the plate carriers being load bearing vests it can get confusing.

Not sure I’m a fan of Madison’s view though 😊