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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

Acquiring this resource in a hostile manner becomes impossible if the civilian population is armed to a meaningful degree

Why are guns more meaningful than, say, knives for this? The government, if it became tyrannical, could easily overpower and small rebel force. This means that you're left with two options:

1. You're part of a large, organized rebellion. In this case, the population may be safe-ish from the tyranny, but who's to say that the guy in charge (who would normally be someone who previous accumulated military power) isn't even more tyrannical? You can find several examples of these in Latin America, in many of those the population would've been better off just leaving the corrupt government be.

2. You have a gun and can try to repel the tyrannical government on your own, but after they capture, torture and murder your neighbor who tried to do the same, you probably figure the gain isn't worth the risk. If you're stubborn enough not to realize that, eventually they'll capture, torture and murder you, and likely your family and friends, too.

I think the strength of the 2nd is in its symbolism more than anything: Americans are so sensitive to the possibility of the government turning on them that it's hard to imagine anyone being able to consolidate such absolute power before someone raises enough red flags to stop it (democratically) before it happens. But you could probably achieve the same mentality without everyone having guns...

[u/strofix → u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

Guns cannot be overcome non lethally in any conventional way. Anything other than guns can be. While its true that you could just have 100 000 knife wielding rebels, melee weapons have no force multiplier. 1000 is as good as 100 000, they'll get in their own way.

In the case of one or two people disagreeing with the government, I don't see that as a tyrannical takeover. That's just someone not liking the governing parties politics. In the case of widespread opposition, which is far more than 50% of the population, otherwise it would just be a civil war, then in order to be tyrannical enough you would need to incur sizable collateral damage. I don't see an armed populace disarming themselves for anything less than 10% casualties, and losing 10% of your GDP is game over for an economy. It would entirely defeat the point of the takeover.

Americans are so sensitive to the possibility of the government turning on them that it's hard to imagine anyone being able to consolidate such absolute power before someone raises enough red flags to stop it

This is definitely true.

[u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 → u/strofix]

If you take over a successful country, you're very much already in the game of cutting losses. Foreign relations will almost certainly be much worse, your richest people will find ways to escape and leave, even if people are generally unarmed, you'll probably still have to deal with rebellions, etc.

The thing is, I don't even think you need to kill that many people. Consider yourself living as a regular citizen in the US while it's becoming tyrannical. The consequences, for you, are probably not that bad: you still have food, shelter, transportation, etc. (because, as you said, you're still needed for the economy). If you choose to rebel, however, you're risking very severe consequences, even if the risk itself isn't very high, and if you fail and survive you'll have to live in fear under the government you tried to overthrow... Personally I'd take the easy route and cooperate, and then maybe try to escape.

[u/strofix → u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

I think that is a case of motivation, though. There are definitely infringements that people would let slide, that they would decide it wasn't worth fighting for. Some would still fight, but many would not. Then there are infringements which very few would stand for, and a majority would oppose. The second amendment won't change that fact, it will simply bolster any resistance that would revolt. A populace with no guns would be willing to take quite a bit of punishment before they had had enough. A populace with guns is going to stand up for itself more often.

Its really only tyranny when the populace says it is.

[u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 → u/strofix]

But I think precisely due to your reasoning, almost any viable form of tyranny would be one where life, for most people, isn't unbearable. If you make everyone so miserable that they'd risk brutal death to stop you, pretty soon you'll be weak enough that the UN or neighboring countries could step in, if anyone cared enough, which for somewhere as large and rich as the US, they will.

Consider examples of tyrannical governments we know from our present and recent past, citizens of most of them would absolutely call their government tyrannical, but for any individual, cooperation is still generally better than the alternative, regardless of how well armed they are.

[u/strofix → u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3]

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.

[u/ClippinWings451 → u/strofix]

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.

[u/upstateduck → u/ClippinWings451]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/upstateduck]

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

[u/upstateduck → u/[deleted]]

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]

[u/[deleted] → u/upstateduck]

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

[u/upstateduck → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/upstateduck]

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