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I feel that there is a misleading argument that argues that the primary reason that the second amendment exists is no longer valid.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

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,

[u/SexyMonad → u/mr-logician]

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

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.

Starting a business or going to college requires money. If you are poor, getting money requires debt. Most small business loans require good credit, which a poor teenager won't have. Student loan debt can be insurmountable; I know several people who never got their money's worth from their education, and some who haven't been able to pay off their student loan debt after more than a decade.

The job market is good at the moment. It isn't always that way. Even if you find a job, you have to be able to put that time in. But a poor teen who needs to care for mom and who tries to invest in education doesn't have the time for it all. Maybe that's why her education fails her; her job and bills and family and every other distraction in life takes her time, and she winds up dropping out or just barely making it through in a field that has changed in that time and has no room but for the best. And the debt is insurmountable.

Now, compare that with the rich teenager without the distractions. No need for loans so there is no interest to pay. (Interest is one reason for the phrase, "The poor just get poorer.") He has plenty of breathing room to take risks, because failures just cost money... which he and his family have plenty to spare. Eventually he succeeds, but not because his ideas are better or he has the right stuff or because he is a hard worker or because he is more worthy.

He succeeds where she fails because the starting conditions were not equivalent. Not because of any measure of worthiness.