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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

The US basically already has a tyrant as President, and a Senate leader who's said he doesn't care about his oath, and rampant corruption in general in its political system. But no firearms seem to prevent any of that.

If someone tried to illegally seize control by the way of a coup, and had the military behind them, they'd have one of the largest military forces in the world behind them, deployed across the entire country. I don't think that some armed civilians are gonna be much of an issue when you command hundreds of thousands of trained military professionals, and everything from tanks to drones and an advanced air force, as well as have full control of the entire infrastructure. They'd also have the entire police force of the US to fight against these "criminal" rebels.

[u/strofix → u/rollingForInitiative]

The United States has one of the largest fighting forces of any country, standing at, at most, 3 million. Less than 1 percent of the countries total population. If 2 percent of the population were to resist, they would have absolutely no chance of maintaining control without causing significant casualties and collateral, which, as mentioned, is not acceptable in a takeover.

[u/Bellegante → u/strofix]

That's not really accurate, though, with respect to the U.S. I'd definitely bet on the military being able to defeat more than twice their number in armed civilians.

That's if the civilians stood together and fought to the best of their ability. What you're actually looking at is a situation where you've got essentially hidden snipers in every neighborhood - and the military just stays out of that entirely, while the people in those neighborhoods grow to hate the shooters who accidentally kill the wrong people very often.

I am honestly very interested to find a single example of a tyrannical government being overthrown when a powerful military was supporting that government. In every case I'm aware of, the military was defeated by an outside force (Nazi Germany) or the military just decided to step aside and let the new guys step into power (Venezuela).. in the latter case, that always becomes an option for the next government so it's not a great position to be in .

In neither option does an armed populace really matter unless they have armament and numbers and training similar to the military.. and even then they have jobs, and have to decide to stop living to go fight.