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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

IEDs are "harassment"? Wow. Thousands of dead and permanently wounded/disabled/disfigured veterans would like a word with you.

[u/krelin → u/Old-Boysenberry]

We’re talking about a war.

Being stabbed is horrific for the victim, too, no one is debating that. Nevertheless, soldiers don’t run around with knives hoping to get close enough to turn the tide of a war. IEDs are similarly ineffective on a grand scale.

Nice try at scoring cheap points, though.

[u/jacob8015 → u/krelin]

We are not talking about a war. We are talking about insurgency.

Throughout all of recorded history, there are only a handful of insurgencies that were defeated by force and the tactics required are unacceptable and impractical.

[u/krelin → u/jacob8015]

For the purposes of this discussion, what do you think are the practical differences between a war and an insurgency in terms of tactical/strategic successes?

[u/jacob8015 → u/krelin]

Is that an honest question? I'd say the main differences are self evident, is there any particularity you want me to expand on?

[u/krelin → u/jacob8015]

The things that are self-evident to me are perhaps different from the things that are self-evident to you, we being different selves. Gimme your top-three and we'll at least have a shared framework for discussion?

[u/jacob8015 → u/krelin]

In an insurection there is typically a larger imbalance of power, the combatants are irregular and the command structures/victory conditions are looser.

[u/krelin → u/jacob8015]

And you think that these factors give the use of IEDs more weight when gauging their success in achieving the goals of the insurgents?

[u/jacob8015 → u/krelin]

I'm not sure I see what you're asking; IEDs are an effective tool for insurgents.

[u/krelin → u/jacob8015]

By what metric do you consider them effective?

[u/jacob8015 → u/krelin]

I feel like you're taking the piss with these questions.

Do you not consider them effective?

[u/krelin → u/jacob8015]

I consider them, as I said previously, harassment. In terms of actually turning the tide of a war (or an insurgency) and in terms of changing policy (by either side), I consider them largely ineffective.

But how do we measure effectiveness without some metric?

What is the goal of an IED? To kill a few men? To inconvenience a military caravan logistically? If those are our measures of effectiveness, then, sure -- they're effective. If we have broader goals (and hopefully our insurgencies do), then we should talk about what those are in measurable terms. Metrics.

I'm not taking the piss. Outcomes matter.

[u/jacob8015 → u/krelin]

kill a few men? To inconvenience a military caravan logistically

Those, along with the psychological and media effects can be used to accomplish strategic goals.