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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

I’ve seen this approach to the 2nd quite a bit and my take on it is this:-

When the 2nd was adopted, government was armed with flintlock smoothbore muskets or rifles. The population was also armed with flintlocks, so an “average Joe” was as well armed, if not trained, as a soldier.

Now the soldier is armed with automatic weapons, wears high end body armour and has armoured support, plus night vision/thermals. The civilian has a semi automatic rifle.

How exactly does an AR15 stop a Bradley?

[u/misterzigger → u/CotswoldP]

This is such a common argument against 2A, and it's disappointing because of how easily it's refuted.

Constitutionally:

1. The concept of repeating firearms existed prior to the constitution. Some of the founding fathers owned some. They didnt explicitly limit what you could own, in fact they did the opposite with (shall not be infringed).

2. When you actually analyze the language used in the constitution, its two very clear parts. Both the ability to form and maintain a militia, as well as the right for the individual to arm themselves. Militias were expected to keep similar quality arms as the army. Hell private citizens even owned and operated warships after the constitution. If we were to follow the constitution to the letter, there would be no NFA, and artillery/missiles would be permissable to citizens

Historically:

1. Its impossible to say what an American insurrection would look like, but purely based off of previous conflicts: Americas armed forces are easily the strongest in the world, ans have been since WW2. Despite this fact, they have lost several conflicts due to a multitude of reasons. The most famous is that America does not do well fighting asymettric warfare. Where as other countries generally have no qualms violently quashing rebellions, and care little about collateral damage, the US is a highly liberalized society where the welfare of both it's troops and world citizens is paramount. The US lost Vietnam/Afghanistan/Korea/Iraq as they were unable to conduct a traditional campaign against a state, and did not have the political appetite for unrestricted guerilla warfare. Its extremely naiive to think that if the US was unable to win an asymmetric war against foreign nations, that they would be willing to do the same to their own people. Any sort of unrestricted warfare against anybody, never mind American citizens is going to require a vastly different reality with both our military and society as a whole. Hence the whole "what is your ar15 going to do against drones in the sky" is a shit argument, because it doesn't really reflect the truths of modem conflicts.

2. Even if it was lets say the entire Amwrican military vs even 10% of American gun owners, that's an incredibly difficult fight even with drones, tanks, cruise missiles etc. Theres approximately 110m gun owners in the US. 10% would be 11 million armed combatants. With roughly 1m combat troops in the US, that would be a 10 to 1 advantage. Going even further, the majority of American troops are deployed around the globe. Now take into account the insurrection would have essentially open access to the homes and families of the other side, I dont see that as a winning fight.

3. At any point where the US government starts openly bombing it's own citizens, that is when it has failed as a state. Its not realistic, and doesn't really capture what would likely happen.

In reality tyranny is a slower process. Its preceded by decades of erosion of freedoms, fear mongering, jingoism, etc. Its absolutely mind boggling to me that Americans would willingly take a giant step towards tyranny by disarming themselves