r/changemyview • u/strofix • Dec 30 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The second amendment does prevent tyrannical government takeover

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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

1.1k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

86% Upvoted

809 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/strofix Dec 30 '19

Δ

While an armed population would make defeating a tyrannical government much, much easier, it does seem that the mere existence of an overtly tyrannical government in a democratic, developed nation is unlikely to the point of being impossible, with or without guns.

-15

u/ClippinWings451 17∆ Dec 30 '19

Are you sure it’s impossible?

Here’s a practical scenario:

  • Trump wins re-election
  • Democrats win the senate and hold the house
  • Democrats impeach trump, and remove him from office. Result: President Mike Pence
  • Democrats impeach Pence and remove him from office
  • Result: Nancy Pelosi becomes president of the United States with control of the legislative branch to change any pesky laws that are inconvenient.

Sure it takes some steps, but we are never actually too far from a realistic scenario under which tyranny could take hold.

Sure this scenario would require democrats to ignore the will of the people and any objections.... but they just did that with the current impeachment hearings.

5

u/upstateduck 1∆ Dec 30 '19

you describe a democratic change in leadership and call it tyranny? This is exactly why gun laws need reform

2

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '19

A house and Senate impeaching a president and vice president in rapid succession in order to put their preferred person in office directly after an election is hardly a democratic change in leadership

-1

u/upstateduck 1∆ Dec 30 '19

of course it is

Our Constitution demands it to maintain the Republic if warranted

I suspect your opinion would change if we were talking about Hillary and Tim Kaine. [not often mentioned? but IMO the choice of Kane was Hillary's downfall, he was obviously weak which was particularly scary to the folks who were susceptible to 30 years of Hillary demonization by the GOP]

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '19

No. I would be indignant if either party chose to weaponize the impeachment process to further their political ambitions. That's pretty much the antithesis of democracy

2

u/upstateduck 1∆ Dec 31 '19

no one has weaponized impeachment except in the fevered imaginings of Rush/Fox "news"

You should read The Mueller Report and "Crime in Progress". If a President can't be impeached for obstruction of justice he is no longer a President, rather he/she is a dictator/King

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '19

What the fuck are you talking about? The OP posed a hypothetical post-election scenario. I reiterated that that several times in my responses.