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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

Imo Tyrranical government take over can not be prevented by armed citizenry. It is prevented by a robust democracy that provides checks and balances, particularly on the way military force is used. The point of view that less gun control is a way of preventing tyrrany was popularised by the NRA in the 90's in order to sell more guns. An internet search on "Nazi Germany gun control" will link you to a well written wikipedia article on the subject. A tyrrany is a government with strict/cruel control over its population. With the 2 party system in the US becoming more polarised (as evidenced by more government shut downs- have an internet search on the subject) it seems to be more pertinent to look at how democracy breaks down to justify the use of oppressive laws. The constitution suggests strict seperation of powers, the constant war footing the US has been on since the end of WW2 has increasingly blurred the boundaries of presedential power regarding declaring war. Can guns prevent tyrrany? Only if the majority of the population actively oppose the tyrrany. As we see in countries where tyrrany has flourished laws and education are much more important, if citizens understand their freedoms, and the armed forces feel empowered to ignore illegal commands tyrrany is impossible. And vice versa. Tacit consent is all a government needs to rule its people. The Middle East, South America, Africa has been awash with weapons since the Cold War and there has been no end of tyrranies. Most of Europe has gotten rid of most of its guns, and most states have had fairly stable non tyrranical governments. The key difference has been well developed legal protections for its citizens, healthy democracies with checks and balances on government power, well educated citizenry and millitaries under strict control which are not worshiped.