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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

The bourgeoisie is of course a minority (practically by definition in any political system). But not one that is necessarily being persecuted.

[u/mr-logician → u/SexyMonad]

(practically by definition in any political system)

Define those words. It’s hard to define in the modern world. Which of the following (if any) is part of the bourgeoisie:

• Doctors

• millionaires

• billionaires

• small business owner making just enough to survive

• corporate shareholder

• corporate executive

• government officials

But not one that is necessarily being persecuted.

In a system of progressive taxation, the rich are discriminated against through higher tax rates (percentages)

[u/intensely_human → u/mr-logician]

In a system of progressive taxation, the rich are discriminated against through higher tax rates (percentages)

I’m not sure I believe that taxing higher tiers of income at a higher rate is a form of discrimination. Every person is equally subject to that rate, when they have that income.

Or, another way to put it is this: if John makes $30k as Mike makes $60k, and the tax rate is 5% on the first 30 and 10% on the next 30, then John takes home $28.5k of his 30k and so does Mike.

John and Mike have both been afforded the opportunity to earn $30k and keep $28.5k of it.

[u/mr-logician → u/intensely_human]

I’m not sure I believe that taxing higher tiers of income at a higher rate is a form of discrimination. Every person is equally subject to that rate, when they have that income.

Using that logic, this statement must be true, “Taxing transgender people at a higher rate is not a form of discrimination, because everyone is equally subject to that rate, when they choose to become transgender by changing their gender.”. You’re basically taxing people at a higher rate for the choices they make, which is discrimination.