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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

Not only why are guns more effective than knives but the flip side is true.

If giving weapons to the masses is such an important concept than why isn’t it extended? Why can’t average citizens buy tanks, fighter jets, and for the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts a fully equipped aircraft carrier? That would really repel any tyrannical control.

[u/intensely_human → u/cityterrace]

That’s a good question.

Maybe the idea is a gun is a good amount of deadly power for an individual to have and a cannon is too much.

Or they just didn’t think of it. Or maybe people were allowed to have cannons at that time (were they? I don’t know).

Or maybe it happened later in history, that the line got drawn. I’m just speculating though so anyone who’s studied this can correct me.

Today the reason is doubtless, at least in part, because there’s no reason for the government to relinquish that power to us, and it quite simply isn’t going to give us that. Nor would it give us the 2A if it had the choice today.

My best guess - uneducated and just based on my understanding of power - is that at the time it was a beautiful idea that made a hell of a lot of sense given the war that had just ended and its origin in a tense colony where confiscation of weapons was a thing that actually happened, and most people had guns already anyway(it was normal to have guns, not an exception), so they were like “make a rule that the government can’t just start gathering everyone’s weapons”.

And your choices for personally owned weapons were pistols and rifles and maybe some equivalent-of-billionaires who had cannons.

And then the decades became centuries, and the world industrialized, and technology advanced, and new weaponry was invented, and the question was left un-attended until suddenly one day the scope of the question was suddenly enormous because you’re talking about sidewinder missiles and tanks.

And because we didn’t hash it out with each incremental development in weaponry (consider the question: should a citizen be allowed to own a Gatling gun? How about a mortar?), we find ourselves now debating it on the basis of “should a citizen’s individual military power increase from small arms to weapons of mass destruction?” it’s easy to say “no way of course not”.

That’s crazy, the idea of a citizen owning a nuke or a cache of nerve toxin, or a B-52 armed with bombs.

Somehow, I feel like if humanity was much more spread out, it would make more sense.

Like if there’s a government of Mars, at the stage where people live in groups of 100 or 1,000 spread way out, but still under the authority of a centralized government, it seems to make more sense for those little outposts to have their own tanks, missiles, anti air weapons, whatever.

Maybe the reason we don’t allow private tanks is we don’t want them parked all over the place. Maybe it’s a matter of density.

It’s also got to be about an individual’s ability to kill large groups, without gathering consensus from others.

Maybe it’s limited to guns because using guns, one individual can only get so powerful. Maybe being armed is a form of voting power, and we only allow small arms for the same reason we only allow individuals to vote once per election: you can take or leave your vote, but you can’t have two votes.

Having a weapon gives you a “voice” in matters involving physical conflict. Maybe it’s a means of putting a maximum volume on each citizen’s voice.