Devils advocate for a moment though.... indulge me....
How do you come back to that point? I mean, suppose it’s not Biden but a friend or co-worker or family member that makes the same argument? That no matter what weapon you have, the government can “take you”.
What’s the argument?
It’s easy to answer that question. Anyone who argues that citizens with rifles can’t stand up to a conventional military hasn’t been paying attention to history for the last 75 years. Much poorer-armed populations than ours have frustrated the most powerful armed forces in the world, including ours.
Take Fallujah, for example. Population roughly 275,000, and it took two Marine regimental combat teams with heavy air and artillery support over a month to secure it against only about 4,000 armed insurgents.
Now lets take a moderately-sized US city with a significant gun-owning population, like Fort Worth. Roughly 850,000 population. Lets be conservative and say at least 150,000 are armed in some fashion, and at least 30,000 have something reasonably suitable for infantry combat, like an AR or AK. The real numbers are probably much higher.
If those 30,000 or so citizens were hostile to the government, how much combat power do you think it would take to subdue and occupy Fort Worth, even with air and artillery, and even assuming the attackers are willing to devastate Fort Worth in order to control it? I’d say at least two. Probably more like four, under the old principle that the attacking force wants to outnumber the defenders by at least 3-to-1.
Four divisions is 40% of the active divisions currently in the U.S. Army. At no time are all ten active divisions fully combat-ready, so we’re really talking more like 60 or 70% of the U.S. Army’s total combat power, tasked to take a single city. And that assumes the entire active duty Army is following orders in such a scenario. In reality, they will at least have significant morale issues and probably will experience at least some amount of desertion, if not mutiny.
Now lets say Fort Worth isn’t the only hostile city. You quickly see that the standing military of the United States lacks the combat power to impose its will on a hostile, armed American public. Which, of course, is exactly how the Founding Fathers wanted it.
So there’s your answer.
What’s the argument?
Ask them to learn about life in Syria for the millions of people not involved in the battle against the government. Assad's government is certainly "taking" most of the country back, but do any one of your friends and family members want to live through the experience of utter destruction, starvation, bombing, being under the control of various warring factions, and societal collapse caused by fighting between the population and the government?
Older people should be able to remember the suffering of people in Vietnam who tried to stay apart from the fighting.
The people that think the government will just win forget the suffering involved. Maybe they will win, maybe another group will win, the outcome of any fighting is never certain. But what is certain is that there will be a lot of destruction of things everybody takes for granted. And in modern warfare nobody escapes the suffering.
Never have to worry about losing that argument if you have a vietnam vet in the family...
(That’s a hint.)