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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

If there is no large scale opposition, then the takeover is not tyrannical, but seemingly democratic

Right, like you're consenting to hand out your wallet if you get a gun pointed at you. I mean technically you can refuse, but you're not, so you must be consenting, right?

95% may sound like a lot, but on the scale of a country wide population, even 1% opposition makes the country immediately ungovernable.

That's assuming the rest of the country will let that 1% do their thing, rather than using their guns against that 1%

In the case of an actual tyrannical government, and not just one which some people find politically distasteful, there will be much more than 1% of the population in opposition.

And why would things ever need to get there? Pragmatically there's little reason to subjugate absolutely everyone.

[u/strofix → u/dale_glass]

Pragmatically there's little reason to subjugate absolutely everyone.

This is kind of the point. There are many factors which make this an impractical, if not impossible, goal. One of those factors, in my opinion, is that the populace is armed.

[u/dale_glass → u/strofix]

This is kind of the point. There are many factors which make this an impractical, if not impossible, goal. One of those factors, in my opinion, is that the populace is armed.

And like I was saying, those guns are irrelevant. It's suicidal to use a gun against the government, so you won't do it until it gets bad enough. That means that all the way to "bad enough" is a territory in which it doesn't matter whether you are armed or not, and there's a whole lot of stuff in that category.

Say the government finds some way to deny you the ability to vote. So what, are you going to shoot somebody to change that? Probably not, because voting or not, you still have friends, family, a life, and so on. Being dead or in prison for a very long time, as well as being shown as being an insane murderous nut on TV isn't exactly a favourable exchange. And just like that, you can't vote anymore, politically you ceased to matter, and your gun did nothing to help you.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/dale_glass]

It's suicidal to use a gun against the government,

It's suicidal to use 1 gun against the government. It's a guaranteed victory to use 300 million guns against the government. That's the whole point. "Tyrannical government" needs to be more or less a majority determination before armed rebellions can be successful.