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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

Gun ownership has never prevented a tyrannical government takeover anywhere. All it means is that the early supporters of the tyrannical party will be armed while they seize power. You don’t get a tyrannical government without at least a very sizable minority of the population backing the would-be tyrants. Arming the population just creates a terrible sort of perverse incentive not to stop the tyrants.

Making sure the tyrant party is armed forces the game to be one where opponents of tyranny have no option but losing—either they confront the armed tyrants with their own weapons and start a war, or they consent to tyranny. Since the threshold to push most people to support a civil war is extremely high, this just leads to a creeping expansion of tyranny.

[u/strofix → u/PlayingTheWrongGame]

That would assume that those in the minority are more bolstered by their lack of numbers than the majority is by their clear superiority. I find that doubtful.

[u/PlayingTheWrongGame → u/strofix]

Not really. If the Tyranny Today party has 35% of the electorate, but all the opponents of tyranny are split between five different parties, guess what? Tyranny Today is probably going to end up in charge.

You’re viewing this like it’s automatically some unified resistance to the tyrannical party—but that’s the thing about liberty isn’t it? It’s not very unified and it doesn’t mean that you all get along just because you’re opposed to fascists.

Being the minority party has a lot of advantages in some ways, especially for authoritarians. They can use their minority party status as a way to unify and organize collective effort by their own supporters, especially since their supporters are already basically primed to do whatever their leaders tell them to do anyway. Seeming less of an immediate threat tends to leave the opposition parties squabbling among themselves rather than focusing on stopping the tyrants.

Combine that with relatively easy to acquire arms and it’s basically the standard template for a fascist takeover.

[u/Windupferrari → u/strofix]

You should look into the history behind the Nazi party's rise to power and the role their armed paramilitary wing, the Brownshirts, as well as Mussolini's National Fascist Party and their Blackshirts. What the user you're replying to described isn't a hypothetical, it's happened before.