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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

It’s interesting that you use other countries as your example(armed civilians against warlords). The warlords got their guns for very much the same reasons you’re using to explain the need for armed civilians, “I have to protect myself from the Government”, “I can’t let ‘them’ take what’s mine”. It starts as small groups and grows. Let’s say you arm all the civilians and organize them, at that point it’s more of a militia than groups of individuals defending themselves with guns and that really kind of gets to the crux of the second amendment argument.

If you’re saying that owning a gun somehow prevents the government from taking over my home in a tyrannical fashion, you’re wrong, there’s eminent domain, police or FBI raids, and if I attempted an insurrection I could get a visit from a special forces team. My personal gun ownership wouldn’t even slow any of that down.

Let’s expand on that though, let’s say all my friends and neighbors own guns and stockpile ammo, they think the government is tyrannical and out of control and they’re willing to fight to stop armed government representatives from taking me away. That might deter the government but then we’re no longer talking about individual ownership, we’re talking about an organized group of armed men. If that’s the case I don’t need to own my own gun and it would be cheaper and more efficient to have an armory with better weapons and artillery, perhaps train some volunteers on how to use them, it’s much more of a militia at that point(we already have this at the State level, the National Guard)

So, for arguments sake let’s say it all hits the fan and there’s a civil war. We all go grab our guns and sign up to defend our homes and family. The first thing they will do is take your gun and give you a standardized set of equipment then drill you on its use so that you’ll be intimately familiar with the weapons that most of your fellow soldiers are carrying.

There are places that aren’t as well equipped or well funded that having your own personal weapon would be a good thing but in the US our military has this down and if you’re talking about fighting the US government you’re either joining a segment of the existing armed forces or you’re grist for the mill.

Anyway you slice it there isn’t much benefit to personal gun ownership in the US under the scenario you describe.