Well, that’s the silliest argument. There will be no frontal assault and, well, if there is ... drones, tanks, technology beyond reason, etc.
However, we do have the right to bear arms. It can protect us against many things. But to think it would protect us from a determined government is laughable.
Will it be useful to take the driver out as he’s taking a dump outside his tank? Or the fuel truck driver? Or any number of other soft targets?
There are 80 million gun owners in the US.
If “drones, tanks, technology beyond reason, etc.” were supremely effective we’d have won in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Balkans, etc., etc. yet we didn’t. Why was that, do you think?
The key to your argument is a “Determined Government”. A determined government must have a taste for the blood of the governed. The chances of us having a military willing to move against our people is tempered by the strength of our governors and their influence over the national guard. As a nation we are yet to large for central command and control and have sufficiently divided authority so as to make protecting one’s self from the government remains a second amendment issue.
Barack, Harry and company are working to fix that.
Disagree - There is a post (very old) on FR, “What can one man do against an army” or similar title.
Worth reading...
Who said anything about a frontal assault?
The British seemed pretty determined at one point...
Study 4th generation asymmetric warfare, don’t take a potshot at the tank with your deer rifle shoot the propaganda artist on the evening news. Before you know it the junta will have a hard time recruiting propaganda artists . Then start working up the food chain.