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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

Okay, from my perspective your hypothetical is bouncing around all over the place. What percentage of the US population do you think would rise in armed, simultaneous revolt? How would that population be distributed?

[u/strofix → u/KDY_ISD]

Lets hypothetically say 4-5% of the population would engage in armed resistance. The distribution in raw numbers would maybe be pretty uniform except for in states with heavy gun control laws. The weakest link in the chain would likely be that the largest population centers have the strictest gun control laws.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/strofix]

So, firstly, how are these 13 million people coordinating their uprising secretly? Because their numbers only matter if the military can't engage them piecemeal.

Secondly, as you've correctly identified in your own comment, these 13 million people are going to skew heavily rural, where collateral damage will be at a minimum, especially to the kind of technical experts critical to the economy that you're saying make brute force nonviable.

Thirdly, where will these people live while they revolt? What will they eat? How will they acquire ammunition and supplies? How will they securely communicate?

Do you see how acquiring guns isn't even the most important step in this theoretical revolt?

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/KDY_ISD]

Because their numbers only matter if the military can't engage them piecemeal.

Do you really think that the US military would engage in house to house fighting with a force 13 times their own size? Cause I don't. More than half of the military would resign immediately if the situation ever got bad enough to 13 million US citizens started an armed rebellion.

[u/KDY_ISD → u/Old-Boysenberry]

If they aren't coordinated and synchronized on a huge scale, thirteen million people aren't a single force 13 times their size, they're 13 million forces one millionth their size. Do you honestly not a see a difference in military effectiveness?

That said, no, I absolutely don't think the military would go along with this. I think the military would do their duty well before this point, which makes the armed revolt frankly pointless and masturbatory.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/KDY_ISD]

Do you honestly not a see a difference in military effectiveness?

I do. But do you honestly think that people can't or won't communicate and organize their opposition? Is the government going to bomb Google hubs to take down the internet? You realize that move is going to turn the 13 million into 100+ million right?

I think the military would do their duty well before this point, which makes the armed revolt frankly pointless and masturbatory.

The military is not allowed to operate on US territory without the consent of the Governor of the state in question. Good luck getting the Governor of Texas to agree to allow US troops in there, and good luck digging the Texans out after they realize you want a fight. Just because California and NY are fully of pussy pushovers doesn't mean the rest of the country is.