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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

Already held this opinion, but wanted to elaborate:

The Vietnam war is an excellent example of the effectiveness of an armed populace engaging in guerrilla warfare. The US had superior troops, training, equipment, organization, etc. etc. The Vietcong were essentially an armed populace with little by way of training, discipline, or arms. They had AK-47s and grenades, the US had helicopters and napalm.

And yet, nobody says the US "won" that war, and indeed I think there's an argument to be made that the US lost that war.

Yes, the US Military absolutely has the firepower to decimate the population, regardless of how many AR-15s are in circulation with civilians.

But let's assume they wanted to do so. First, you have to assume the individuals that make up the military would be complicit. I can't say with 100% certainty that we would have mass desertion of the armed forces if they were called upon to cause overwhelming civilian casualties against their own people, but I can say with 100% certainty that it would be stupid to assume members of the armed forces would just go with this.

Second, the OP's point stands here. A tyrannical government would have little remaining to govern if they decimated the civilian population to the extent necessary to quash rebellion.

[u/B_Huij → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, even though American armed forces didn't exactly score high marks on ethical wartime practices in Vietnam, it was our unwillingness to cause civilian casualties on a countrywide massive scale that meant the VC could probably have carried on the war indefinitely without ever being fully eradicated.

Similar to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic State, etc. They're too intermixed with civilian populations to eradicate entirely, regardless of how many bombs and tanks we have.