Guns vs Government Tyranny

Your AR-15 is not going to defend you against a drone strike. The idea you could fight the government with privately owned weapons is completely laughable, and the entire notion comes from an era long before tanks and missiles and nuclear bombs made the entire concept ridiculous. If you want to fight an abusive government you do it through the power of an organized populace. You can’t force an entire nation to live at the barrel of a gun.

So? They don't have an air force, tanks, radar installations, anything really besides guns, rpgs, and improvised explosive devices.It's at least as naive to believe that our government will always be benevolent as it is to believe that the armed civilians of the USA could rebel against the military. I would argue that the second is much more plausible.

I have a hard time imagining even a large group of people with vast stockpiles of weapons competing on any level with the largest military in the history of the world. If the US government turns against its citizens, it's game over. Or, to quote Andre Benjamin, While we ranting and raving about gats / N%&, they made them gats / They got some shit that'll blow out our backs.

This is silly, guns can't protect the population against the modern government. It would start by running a disinformation campaign to turn citizens against each other, then would purge large swaths of the resisting power structure using slaughterbot-type approaches. Areas of significant political resistance would be wiped out using chemical weapons, or even nuclear weapons. The weapons of the U.S. Military turned against the population of the U.S. would be efficiently horrific at reducing

That argument has been raised many times many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons:1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose.2. That's actually not the case

They may outgun a single person but they won't outgun a large scale uprising. You're also assuming the police and military will always obey orders, which hasn't always been the case, especially when government goes dictatorial.We haven't (thank god) had a situation in the USA where actually shooting at law enforcement is a good idea. That is, where you're literally at war with the government and trying to replace it with another one, which will in turn recognise your

Yes, it does: an armed populace is harder to push around.

"There is no scenario in which any citizen with a gun in any country defeats their government."In case you haven't seen the news, ~75,000 militants with AK-47s just conquered a country of 30,000,000 persons in a matter of weeks.

You mean the first amendment right? The US military machine would decimate any civilians wielding weapons if they were so inclined. They wouldn't even have to use troops, they could do so with drones.

Similarly to how strong password policies are no match for good hackers, but make compromising many accounts expensive or prohibitive, an armed populace cannot defeat a trained army, but can make "martial law" and other military actions against civilians risky and expensive -- and that is enough. It is the same principle as the older threat of a mob or peasant revolt.The United States is a strange country because it encourages armed rebellion in any second- and third-world country but tries n