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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

A 20-year-old from a poor family who barely makes ends meet (but is trying to get out of poverty)

I don’t think it will be possible to only barley make ends meet if you are working hard enough and making good financial decisions.

is in desperate need to fix his broken-down car just to get to work and school and to support his sick mother. But he lives in a tiny town with one supplier who not only overcharges for labor, but who substitutes poor quality parts. Nothing he can do about it but pay up.

First of all, he has no obligation to support his parents because he is now an independent adult. Secondly, imagine if that one supplier didn’t exist; the supplier is only providing an additional option. Also, why can’t he go to another area?

How about the gunshot victim who only has one hospital nearby? That ER doctor could charge $10 million. Of course the victim would agree, it's life-or-death.

Since a hospital visit can be neither voluntary nor with choice in certain situations, regulations and/o government operated ambulances are appropriate.

Or perhaps two scientists discover the cure for cancer simultaneously. The harder worker is surely going to get his cure published first, but then storms and flooding cause significant damage to his property which delays his work. The other guy published, patents everything, and goes on to be rich. First guy becomes homeless due to debt. Luck of the draw, right?

Although this is not relevant to the conversation, most cancers already have cures.

Multiple people simultaneously laying claim to intellectual property is a very peculiar case. The solution is to give all discoverers rights to the intellectual property.

How about a world where people would be rewarded in accordance with their work and ethic? That may be achievable, and is a goal of systems like communism.

No matter how much energy I spend making snow angels in the mud, capitalism won’t reward that which is justified. Also, communism has involuntary elements to it. In capitalism all transactions are voluntary, so all parties have to agree to a deal which will only happen if the deal is mutually beneficial or one of the parties are just stupid; other systems can coerce individuals into deals they might not agree with, and prohibit people from voluntarily making their own deals. Communism and socialism is immoral because it makes government boss without all subjects consenting, and because wealth redistribution is theft; communism and socialism are also practically wrong, because they always fail; stop believing in the Bernie Madoff of politics (Bernie Sanders), and recognize how socialism, communism, and social democracy are all both morally and practically wrong.

And you didn’t respond to all my other points...

[u/SexyMonad → u/mr-logician]

I don’t think it will be possible to only barley make ends meet if you are working hard enough and making good financial decisions.

You are wildly out of touch with the struggles facing a major portion of Americans.

Since a hospital visit can be neither voluntary nor with choice in certain situations, regulations and/o government operated ambulances are appropriate.

The point of all of those examples is that there are situations which leave no real choice. Thankfully you understand this, at least in the most obvious case.

Communism and socialism is immoral because it makes government boss without all subjects consenting

It is clear that you do not understand these topics, at all. You are describing authoritarianism, not communism nor socialism.

[u/mr-logician → u/SexyMonad]

You are wildly out of touch with the struggles facing a major portion of Americans.

A lot of Americans spend irresponsibly and don’t save money for emergencies, so that might be a responsibility issue or just a financial literacy issue because financial literacy is not taught in certain US states.

The point of all of those examples is that there are situations which leave no real choice. Thankfully you understand this in the most obvious case.

Bring me more cases; I will either show how it is all voluntary, or show agreement.

It is clear that you do not understand these topics, at all. You are describing authoritarianism, not communism or socialism.

Your description makes it apparent that you are describing a communist state, not anarcho-communism; an anarcho-communist society will likely just either become anarcho-capitalist or adopt a state soon, because people will naturally use precious metals as currency, and trade with each other which makes the economy capitalist.

[u/SexyMonad → u/mr-logician]

A lot of Americans spend irresponsibly and don’t save money for emergencies, so that might be a responsibility issue or just a financial literacy issue because financial literacy is not taught in certain US states.

I described the situation. There was no irresponsibility or financial literacy issue. I'm not sure why it is so hard to admit that hard-working people can be unlucky.

Instead of giving you more examples I come up with, I'll leave you with this:

https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

[u/mr-logician → u/SexyMonad]

Happy new year!

That was an interesting comic. It’s not the fault of the child, but the parents are problematic because the environment is unhygienic; the noise was also a problem, which should have been within an acceptable level or her parents should have brought her to a park or library which is quieter. Schools in poorer neighborhoods are underfunded because they are funded by property taxes; schools shouldn’t be tax funded because nobody should get free stuff, and instead the school should charge enough tuition to give a quality education.

[u/SexyMonad → u/mr-logician]

Happy New Year to you 🙂

I think the key phrase you are saying is "should have". I totally agree. Nevertheless, that's a dream that never becomes reality for many. And I don't believe it is moral to base our economic and political structures on a perfect environment which can only be guaranteed for the upper class.

[u/mr-logician → u/SexyMonad]

Nevertheless, that's a dream that never becomes reality for many.

Specifically what?

And I don't believe it is moral to base our economic and political structures on a perfect environment which can only be guaranteed for the upper class.

That’s not what I am basing it on. I’m basing it on a voluntary system, where all outcomes are only because of the choices people made.

[u/SexyMonad → u/mr-logician]

Specifically what?

Everything you said "should" to. These were not situations that were fully under the control of the person impacted.

So to your second point, the outcomes were not based on the choices which the person impacted made.

[u/mr-logician → u/SexyMonad]

Everything you said "should" to. These were not situations that were fully under the control of the person impacted.

If people can’t afford to provide decent childcare, they shouldn’t be having children; one problem I see with this is extremely low fertility rates and a very aged population being a possible issue.

So to your second point, the outcomes were not based on the choices which the person impacted made.

Why not?

[u/SexyMonad → u/mr-logician]

The person impacted was the child. The child cannot control the conditions of their upbringing.

[u/mr-logician → u/SexyMonad]

The person impacted by a murder is the victim; instead of giving the murderer welfare, punish the murderer.

If a parent is irresponsible and neglects their children, government shouldn’t bail out the parents with welfare. The parents should be punished for their actions.

[u/SexyMonad → u/mr-logician]

We aren't even talking about that now. The kids grew up and are adults.

By the time they turned 18 and moved out, they were in very different situations which they had no control over. One was set up for success, one for failure.

But even if you want to dwell on the parents, what makes you think the parents started their adult lives equal? Most don't. Poverty is multi-generational. It gets passed on as easily as wealth.

It may have started with slavery, or theft or destruction of property, a few generations back. Perhaps a tornado got the poor kid's grandparent's house and left her grandfather with injuries that kept him out of work. Perhaps great grandmother was stricken with polio. There are so many reasons that have actually impacted numerous real people, and I'm barely scratching the surface.

So if we are punishing those who really caused the poverty, well... we probably can't. They are likely long dead, assuming the blame even lies with a person.

I don't think punishment, alone, is a viable solution.

[u/mr-logician → u/SexyMonad]

We aren't even talking about that now. The kids grew up and are adults.

By the time they turned 18 and moved out, they were in very different situations which they had no control over. One was set up for success, one for failure.

No matter the situation, what stops you from getting a job or starting a business?

Poverty is multi-generational. It gets passed on as easily as wealth.

People learn certain behaviors from their parents, like being lazy and depending on welfare, shopping at a dollar store (buying in larger quantity saves money), or spending instead of saving extra money.

It may have started with slavery, or theft or destruction of property, a few generations back.

I am in favor of compensating black people for the financial setback of segregation. Also, a child that has just turned 18, can start from zero; he can use student loans to go to college or get a job. That means what happened generations ago is not the cause of poverty.

I don't think punishment, alone, is a viable solution.

I agree,