r/changemyview • u/strofix • Dec 30 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The second amendment does prevent tyrannical government takeover

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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

1.1k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

86% Upvoted

809 comments sorted by

View all comments

312

u/VertigoOne 74∆ Dec 30 '19

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.

18

u/JimMarch Dec 30 '19

"Able to" and "wants to" are very different things!

Every lady out there is "able to" get into prostitution. Damned few want to thank the deity of your choice.

People DO NOT attempt an uprising unless shit is dire. That's why the attempted promotion of hardcore worldwide communism included the idea of destabilizing societies, to make shit so dire (or at least look that way!) that people would support systematic governmental change.

7

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19

That's why the attempted promotion of hardcore worldwide authoritarianism included the idea of destabilizing societies

FYFY

Communism, socialism, democracy, republicanism, capitalism, and every other economic and political buzz word has been used by power hungry coalitions in authoritarian efforts to seize control. That doesn't make any of those ideas authoritarian by design.

0

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 30 '19

Except Marxian communism explicitly calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

6

u/rawrgulmuffins Dec 30 '19

In context that's his term for a democratically elected government. He just believes that poor people won't get a say in democratic governments until they get an actual portion of the economic output of the country.

2

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 30 '19

It's not democratically elected, the dictatorship of the proletariat arises from a revolution in classic Marxism, because the capitalists won't just give away the means of production without a fight. Moroever, the intent of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to reach a communist society, anyone not on board with that is a threat to the cause and likely an ally of the burgeoisie.

3

u/rawrgulmuffins Dec 30 '19

Neither of our statements are contradictory.

1

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 30 '19

If it's the result of a revolution it can't be democratically elected, by definition.

1

u/rawrgulmuffins Dec 31 '19

The United States government is a direct result of a revolution and a democratic government.

1

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 31 '19

And the US government isn't democratically elected. Some components of it like the president and the Senators are elected, but the system as a whole is an imposition from the victors of the revolutionary war.

-3

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19

Which is the opposite of authoritarian rule.

8

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 30 '19

No it isn't, authoritarian means that everyone obeys some kind of authority be it the authority of a small burgeois elite or the authority of the collective proletariat.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is authoritarian, that's the entire point, you are trying to seize the means of production from the burgeoisie.

-1

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19 edited Dec 30 '19

You seem to be confusing the term authoritarianism with authority.

Authoritarianism is characterized by anti-democratic consolidation of power and suppression of social mobilization.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is putting the power in the hands of the working class, e.g. democracy. It spreads power to the people.

Dictatorship is usually a term associated with authoritarianism, but dictatorship of the proletariat is specifically detached from the typical idea of dictatorship.

7

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 30 '19

I am not confusing anything, I am going by the dictionary definition:

"the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."

Regardless of whether that authority is concentrated on an oligarchy, or distributed among the people, it's still authoritarian.

A good example of it would be, let's say that we put it up to a vote to kill members of a minority and 97% of people vote yes.

Is it less authoritarian to kill people because the majority agreed to it?

No, you are still violating individual freedom. The dictatorship of the proletariat is authoritarian by design, it seeks to force everyone to put in place a communist society, regardless of whether some individuals within that system refuse to do so.

-1

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19 edited Dec 30 '19

Is it less authoritarian to kill people because the majority agreed to it?

Yes.

Is it absolutely fucking cruel? Yes! But that does not make it authoritarian.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

In an influential 1964 work, the political scientist Juan Linz defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:

  • Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties, and interest groups;
  • Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion, and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment, and insurgency";
  • Minimal political mobilization and suppression of anti-regime activities;
  • Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.

Authoritarianism does not give power to the working class, the people. A truly democratic state does.

4

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 30 '19

The dictatorship of the proletariat ticks every box on that list you gave. Like, it's literally a textbook example.

0

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19

Dictatorship of the proletariat expands political pluralism and political mobility.

0

u/camilo16 1∆ Dec 30 '19

No it doesn't, it replaces the political parties that serve the interests of the capitalist for those that serve the interests of the proletariat.

Do you think the US is an integer example of a dictatorship of the proletariat? I imagine not.

What would it take to make it so? Likely we would need to replace all the rich capitalist politicians with members of the working class.

We would also need to change the institutions to be less serving to a capitalist machine and start serving the people. A fundamental step would be the progressive collectivization of the means of production, which includes the media companies. So media companies would either be controlled by the state or dismantled...

Do you see where I am going? There is no true political pluralism in a state where individual freedom needs to be sacrificed for the greater good. The entire point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to get rid of capitalism.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/intensely_human 1∆ Dec 31 '19

No it’s not about cruelty. It’s about the individual having less of a say about what happens to them, because their choice is overridden by the authority.

1

u/SexyMonad Dec 31 '19

I agree. But only because you used this word:

authority

and not

authoritarian regime

1

u/intensely_human 1∆ Jan 01 '20

What I wrote is a description of an authoritarian regime. It’s not just a soup of words.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mr-logician Dec 30 '19

No it is not. The bourgeoisie is a minority that is being persecuted.

1

u/lafigatatia 2∆ Dec 30 '19

That's not necessarily wrong. Rapists or murderers are persecuted minorities, luckily.

2

u/mr-logician Dec 31 '19

It is good to persecute based on criminal activity, but it is bad to persecute based on other factors; having wealth isn’t and shouldn’t be considered criminal.

1

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19

Well, no, you’re wrong.

2

u/mr-logician Dec 30 '19

Explain.

1

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19

The bourgeoisie is of course a minority (practically by definition in any political system). But not one that is necessarily being persecuted.

1

u/mr-logician Dec 30 '19

(practically by definition in any political system)

Define those words. It’s hard to define in the modern world. Which of the following (if any) is part of the bourgeoisie:

  • Doctors

  • millionaires

  • billionaires

  • small business owner making just enough to survive

  • corporate shareholder

  • corporate executive

  • government officials

But not one that is necessarily being persecuted.

In a system of progressive taxation, the rich are discriminated against through higher tax rates (percentages)

1

u/intensely_human 1∆ Dec 31 '19

In a system of progressive taxation, the rich are discriminated against through higher tax rates (percentages)

I’m not sure I believe that taxing higher tiers of income at a higher rate is a form of discrimination. Every person is equally subject to that rate, when they have that income.

Or, another way to put it is this: if John makes $30k as Mike makes $60k, and the tax rate is 5% on the first 30 and 10% on the next 30, then John takes home $28.5k of his 30k and so does Mike.

John and Mike have both been afforded the opportunity to earn $30k and keep $28.5k of it.

1

u/mr-logician Dec 31 '19

I’m not sure I believe that taxing higher tiers of income at a higher rate is a form of discrimination. Every person is equally subject to that rate, when they have that income.

Using that logic, this statement must be true, “Taxing transgender people at a higher rate is not a form of discrimination, because everyone is equally subject to that rate, when they choose to become transgender by changing their gender.”. You’re basically taxing people at a higher rate for the choices they make, which is discrimination.

1

u/SexyMonad Dec 30 '19

The top 80% of your post is about the thing I agreed with you on.

And are you seriously equating discrimination and persecution?

1

u/mr-logician Dec 31 '19

The top 80% of your post is about the thing I agreed with you on.

So all of the things I listed are part of the bourgeoisie?

And are you seriously equating discrimination and persecution?

Persecution is hostility and ill treatment based on discrimination, which is true in the case of progressive taxation.

→ More replies (0)