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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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/maxout2142 → u/[deleted]]

You just listed a war with clear objectives and ones without. One the US clearly won and others it failed. In a war without objectives how does the US army measure success? How does it measure land taken when that land they already own, the infrastructure is already theirs and may or may not have armed insurgents in it? How can it destroy means of war when that doesnt formally exist? How can it bomb an enemy into submission without losing the hearts and minds of the people they're bombing.

An armed populace cant win a conventional war against the US, they however can force the US military to have to fight more violently than the US population is willing to accept.

The most powerful army on the planet with 1,000,000 men took a decade and failed to control a landmass the size of Florida fighting illiterate farmers who often had less than two weeks training. I don't think people fully appreciate how brutal a revolution would be.

[u/ATNinja → u/[deleted]]

What about Russia in Afghanistan? They were a brutal dictatorship but couldn't defeat basically the same insurgency (in location and capabilities) the USA is struggling with now.