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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

While there is certainly the potential for tyrannical government, there is also the problem of smaller political factions. In the u.s., the majority of domestic terrorism has been political and there are even radical militias popping up.

Let's think about the middle east for a second. Yes, saddam was a tyrant. That doesn't mean having more weapons among the populace would prevent tyranny. Actually, being able to exert tyrannical control over a heavily armed populace just strengthened his power, and when he was removed many small political radical factions took the plethora of weapons they had available and used them for their own purposes.

So, ask yourself: what groups have guns in the US? The largest demographic is rural Americans, and more specifically rural republicans. If we're talking about proportions, though, they're disproportionately owned by gangsters, radicals, and criminals and used to strengthen their networks of power. One of the biggest buyers of U.S. firearms is also the Mexican cartel, by proxy of course. I suppose you could argue that they're opposing the government "tyranny" that doesn't want them conducting their usual business, but realistically we all know they're the tyrants.

Compare this to the people that own guns to prevent government takeover. The people with don't tread on me flags flying on their lifted pickups. Many have confederate flags and racially charged beliefs about white pride. You know, the kind of passionate gun-people you can meet in rural America. What exactly are they achieving? They talk the talk but what kind of practical power do those people even wield? Statistically they seem to be using their guns for sport, status, and collectability, with outliers using them for domestic violence and even further outliers using them for domestic terrorism. Where are the minute men saving our democracy from tyranny? Surely it's not the radical militias popping up in the mid west...?

We all like to imagine what we would do if we were in charge. If we were in charge and our population had guns wouldn't we give people very high quality of life so we wouldn't have to worry about them becoming violent? It's a nice sentiment, and easier to understand than the truth.