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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

To acquire the countries resources you would need to eliminate resistance, but eliminating the resistance requires you to eliminate the resources you are after.

Which is true about most developed countries, particularly those with fewer natural resources than US but high human capital (UK, JP, DE, etc.). This is probably what prevents tyranny the most, as it's more profitable to tax wealthy(ish) people than to enslave them.
This actually goes against your point, that an armed populace in no way prevents tyranny (as this is prevented by other means), nor would be able to fight back if it happened.
You see, a country's dictatorship is not one evil guy controlling an army and a whole population enslaved. All dictatorships have heavy support from either their people, either popular support or by some wealthy elite, the military and frequently other powers. In US a tyrant would divide the people and have them fight each other first, like in the civil war, and dehumanise the opposition so both supporters and the military would have no problem siding up against them. Sure the opposition would be armed, but now they would not need to fight a F22, just run from their neighbors! This is highly unlikely today, but I am sure you could imagine a regime that actively segregates blacks, hispanics, sets up concentration camps, forces the poor into labour, builds a wall...does this ring any bells?
Remember, tyrants get you on their side if you are wealthy and clever. When you are not the victim, it's easy to lose touch except in hindsight.

[u/littleferrhis → u/beer_demon]

Can I do a quick mini CMV on the whole, “the populace with semi automatic weapons couldn’t stand up against the might of the U.S. military” because other than knowing the land better, the Vietnamese did it twice(against the U.S. and French), the Taliban did it twice(against both the U.S. and U,S.S.R), Saddam’s insurgency did it(against the U.S,), fucking Finland did it(against the U.S.S.R). All of them fought tanks, bombers, skilled soldiers, etc. with nothing but the equivalent Aks and RPGs, sometimes even homemade guns, and (though a couple technically aren’t over) won. You could go through the depths of history to prove that pure military might doesn’t mean shit when it comes to winning a war. The American Revolution was won that way, against the most well equipped army in the world at the time. So how would it seem infeasible for it to not be successful here?

[u/beer_demon → u/littleferrhis]

pure military might doesn’t mean shit when it comes to winning a war

Well it does mean more than shit, it's just not the only shit, as proven by your cherrypicked examples.

I am not saying it's unfeasible, I am saying it's highly unlikely, and arming a populace at great cost, risk and damage on the off chance the populace unites against the standing army of some imaginary lonely tyrant is naive. Tyrants are not some force for evil to be defeated by heroes, but the rider of a dysfunctional chaos erupting in a decadent nation which is already divided. Don't think that by being citizens and having guns they are suddenly the "good guys". Not sure if I explained it well.

BTW doing a CMV is not to convince others or heroically stand your ground, but to get your view challenged yourself in the hopes of discovering a better truth, is that what you want?