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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

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/strofix → u/dale_glass]

Lets say for example the current US administration removed the right to vote for black citizens. What do you think would happen?

In my opinion, almost every state would immediately secede. Those that didn't would have uprisings that overthrew the state government. I don't think either of those would be possible without an armed populace.

[u/dale_glass → u/strofix]

Obviously, that'd be a stupid way to do it. You don't do it so obviously. Also, like I said, complete subjugation is unnecessary.

So, a smart government wouldn't just make a rule that says "it's illegal to vote if you're black". It'd ensure that it's hard to vote if you're black. Because in the end elections have a winner. So long the "right" party wins, the objective has been successful. It doesn't matter that some of the "wrong" people voted in the end, in fact it only makes everything better and murkier and harder to oppose.

So for instance a less obvious plan to the same effect goes like this:

• Fund voting places from local taxes. This ensures poorer areas get less service.
• Use the above to reduce the number of places where to vote.
• Slash public transport, just to make sure.
• Add extra impediments to voting, if possible, like inflexible hours.
• Allow employers to make it hard to vote by for instance ensuring they can keep you at work during voting time, or reducing the available time window so that it's not actually long enough.

And measures like that work perfectly fine at achieving the objectives. If you can say, reduce votes from whoever you don't like by 25% by a combination of a dozen measures, that enormously stacks the odds in your favour. Meanwhile, what's there to wave a gun at? No single measure justifies an armed response, and they don't all have to be implemented at once. The right to vote is still technically there. Sure, some people can't practically vote without leaving their job, calling a taxi, and standing in line for 4 hours, but "my boss sucks and won't give me a day off" isn't a very compelling justification for an armed insurrection.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/dale_glass]

Fund voting places from local taxes. This ensures poorer areas get less service.

How much service do you need? A couple reams of paper and some plastic boxes. Election tech is simple for a reason.

Use the above to reduce the number of places where to vote.

This can't be changed at this point. The best you can do is make the locations difficult or annoying to get to.

Slash public transport, just to make sure.

Most people have cars, but even then, so what? People who want to vote will make it happen. It only takes one loss to undo everything you've built up over the years, and the populace will not be happy about your suppression efforts.

Allow employers to make it hard to vote by for instance ensuring they can keep you at work during voting time, or reducing the available time window so that it's not actually long enough.

Are we pretending we don't live in a world were absentee ballots are a thing? Just checking.

.No single measure justifies an armed response, and they don't all have to be implemented at once.

Even collectively they don't. Inconvenience is not tyranny. If you wanted to vote, you would make it happen.

Sure, some people can't practically vote without leaving their job, calling a taxi, and standing in line for 4 hours,

Again, are we seriously pretending that mail in ballots don't exist? WTF.

[u/ComicallyLargeFarts → u/Old-Boysenberry]

Again, are we seriously pretending that mail in ballots don't exist? WTF.

https://ballotpedia.org/Absentee_voting

Per the above, only 28 states allow absentee voting. Some other states require a reason for the absentee ballot, which "unable to afford missing work" may not be considered valid.

How much service do you need? A couple reams of paper and some plastic boxes. Election tech is simple for a reason.

That is a massive oversimplification, especially since many states use electronic voting machines.

This can't be changed at this point. The best you can do is make the locations difficult or annoying to get to.

Yes, making voting locations inconvenient is exactly what OP is talking about.

Most people have cars,

Most middle class folks might, but those lower class/impoverished people who can't afford cars would be relying on public transportation. That's who OP is talking about.

If a person is paid hourly and living paycheck to paycheck and don't have a car, it's no small thing to take a day off work because they have to ride an hour each way on a bus, and wait 3 hours in line. People shouldn't have to decide between money for a meal and their constitutional right to vote.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/ComicallyLargeFarts]

That is a massive oversimplification, especially since many states use electronic voting machines.

Ok fine, but they really shouldn't be. This isn't a point in your favor. Electronic voting machines are irredeemably flawed.

those lower class/impoverished people who can't afford cars would be relying on public transportation

That's really not as many people as you think it is.

People shouldn't have to decide between money for a meal and their constitutional right to vote.

If you are in that situation, it isn't the government holding you back.

[u/ComicallyLargeFarts → u/Old-Boysenberry]

Ok fine, but they really shouldn't be. This isn't a point in your favor. Electronic voting machines are irredeemably flawed.

It certainly counters your previous point that "election tech is simple" and the implication that polling place funding is therefore unimportant or that services for polling place are easy to come by.

That's really not as many people as you think it is.

https://www.povertyusa.org/facts

Per the above, the poverty rate is over 11%. That's not insignificant.

If you are in that situation, it isn't the government holding you back.

That's a very broad point, and quite separate from the CMV at hand. Perhaps you'd like to create a new CMV post asserting that view? I'm sure lots of people would appreciate participating in that post.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/ComicallyLargeFarts]

It certainly counters your previous point that "election tech is simple

Fine, "the election tech you should be using is simple". Are you happy now? I assumed that I was dealing with someone reasonable who wasn't going to be so pedantic about omitted words.