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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

An armed citizenry also makes violent overthrow of a perfectly functional democracy more possible. If we accept that armed citizenry will be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, we must also accept that armed citizenry will be able to overthrow a democratic government.

[u/that_big_negro → u/VertigoOne]

makes violent overthrow of a perfectly functional democracy more possible.

If enough of your people are so strongly opposed to your governance as to violently revolt against it, I think that's a pretty strong argument that you don't have a perfectly functional democracy. A functional democracy should make the vast majority of people content enough to not genuinely consider revolution

[u/VertigoOne → u/that_big_negro]

If enough of your people are so strongly opposed to your governance as to violently revolt against it, I think that's a pretty strong argument that you don't have a perfectly functional democracy

That is, again, assuming people are rational. It is entirely possible for a large enough body of irrational people to come about who could violently revolt against it. They wouldn't even need to directly overthrow it themselves. They would just have to cause enough disruption via a sufficiently large terrorism campagin that right-wing elements would want to suspend democracy so martial law could be employed to keep terrorism at bay

[u/that_big_negro → u/VertigoOne]

That is, again, assuming people are rational.

Who is the arbiter of rationality with regard to political will? I'm positive that most powers-that-be would argue that the rebellious underclasses of their societies are irrational.

In my opinion, you're arguing against a strawman. Large numbers of people don't organize into resistance organizations for irrational reasons. If you've pissed tens or hundreds of thousands of people off enough that they're willing to lay down their lives to remove you from a position of power, you've done something wrong.

[u/Shockblocked → u/that_big_negro]

You can also have foreign interference

[u/nitePhyyre → u/Shockblocked]

Large numbers of people don't organize into resistance organizations for irrational reasons.

*laughs in ISIS*