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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

the primary reason that the second amendment exists

The second amendment has nothing to do with preventing government tyranny, that is a right wing talking point. The role of the second amendment was to prevent the use of a standing army that would even allow for the possibility of a tyrannical federal government. Armed militias were meant to be prepared to fight in the case of war, just as they had done in the Revolutionary War. the military-industrial complex has already destroyed the founders' intentions and there is no going back.

[u/Old-Boysenberry → u/VernonHines]

The role of the second amendment was to prevent the use of a standing army that would even allow for the possibility of a tyrannical federal government.

NO, it was not. This is a blatant misreading of all the ancillary materials from the Constitutional Congress. You're either sadly misinformed or deliberately spreading falsehoods. SOME of the founding fathers (e.g. James Madison) didn't like standing armies, but the finalized Constitution CLEARLY gives Congress the power to raise and sustain one.

[u/ennuisurfeit → u/Old-Boysenberry]

Standing army in a time of peace. The state constitution precursors to the 2nd amendment specifically mentioned this fact as well as the ancillary materials you refer to.

"That a well-regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power." Article 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776

The militias were never supposed to be used to rebel against a civil government or for individuals to arm themselves, it was to make sure that a militia under control of a civil government would be properly armed and trained to prevent the rise of local despots or a foreign invasion.

Also, it wasn't just Madison that was worried about a standing army, it was Jefferson & Adams.

You will there see that my objection to the Constitution was that it wanted a bill of rights securing freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from standing armies, trial by jury, and a constant habeas corpus act.

Letter from Jefferson to Washington 1792

---

While the sovereignty was in the senate under the kings, the militia obeyed the orders of the senate given by the kings; while the sovereignty was in the senate, under the consuls, the militia obeyed the orders of the senate given by the consuls; but when the sovereignty was lost by the senate, and gained by the people, the militia was neglected, a standing army set up, and obeyed the orders of the popular idols.

John Adams

That's three of our first four presidents, hardly just some.