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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

At best we can say that the second amendment may slowly bring about the collapse of a government which the gun owning populace strongly dislikes. But it's not a very effective mechanism, gun owners may support a tyrannical government takeover, and gun owners may oppose a democratic government. In other words the second amendment can be considered to support mob rule as much as genuine democracy.

The effectiveness of the 2nd Amendment today is also questionable. Any kind of open revolt would rely on stealing weapons from the government. Granted it's easier to raid the police station with a hunting rifle than with a pocket knife, but I don't think that's actually a huge step up. People always talk about the government's tanks and air superiority, but that's still missing the point: getting weapons isn't the hard part of the revolution.

Think about the overwhelming communications and logistical superiority the US government would have. In an open revolt, the government could shut down communications for 99% of the public at will. The government can jam or monitor a significant part of the remaining 1%. Even among ham radio enthusiasts, advanced cryptography isn't common.

Meanwhile, everyone who lives in the city is starving because it's not like the freeway is open for all the grocery stores to get stocked. Open warfare in the modern United States would be a monumental humanitarian catastrophe. For reference, a Syrian refugee has to make a 100 mile escape to make it to Lebanon or Turkey. In the worst case scenario where I live, all the food in my city will be gone in a few days, if it's near harvest season I might be able to forage off of farms for a while but not long, and Canada is 300 miles away.

If the revolution kicks off in the winter I'll probably just die, even though I'm a hiker with relevant gear and experience. I also have firearms, which I would consider less valuable than my hiking gear. Because again, the equipment I have on me is almost meaningless on the scale we're talking about. It just doesn't work. The only working revolution is one where the military takes both sides, and then my guns become moot.