Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments

First I would like to summarize our discussion, mainly unaddressed arguments, for the sake of clarity and to facilitate my opponent's reply. New argument will be marked with (new) tag. Combating against popular tyrant: Both agreed that armed citizen is not a deterrent to a popular tyrant. Combating against internal tyrant: Contention no 1: US citizens, supported by defected military faction, may defeat the tyrannical force (Round 1) Rebuttal: In a direct confrontation, armed with strike capacity, both tactically and strategically, and with far superior logistic, a reasonably smart tyrannical government (RSTG) will quickly crush the rebel. (Round 1). Further, in all historical confrontations between US military and US rebels, the rebellions usually fallen apart rather quickly, in some cases without any actual combat, due to morale collapse. (Round 3). Sheer number does not means much if logistic can be strategically crippled by the RSTG - food, medicine and clothing supply will be restricted, arm and ammunition supply will be destroyed, HQ will be raided, external support will be blockaded... It would be only a matter of time before the rebellion collapse under its own weight, both in term of morale and material, at no significant cost to the RSTG (new). In fact, no direct confrontation is needed to combat the rebels: an efficient strategy the RSTG can adopt was outlined in my response in Round 1. Contention no 2: "A citizen militia using guerilla tactics may be able to weaken the tyrannical regime" Rebuttal: Guerrilla tactic, takes decades to be effective, and requires tremendous sacrifices - one that US partisans never faced. (Round 1) Drone forever changed the ability for one to wage a guerrilla war (Round 1). Further, the US government has decades of practice with counter-insurgency, both from the Vietnam War and the wars against terrorism, and can be argued to be the best in the world when it comes to combat insurgence, while most US citizens, military personnel included, have no experience on guerrilla tactics (new). Contention no 3: "A citizen militia does not need to be able to match and defeat the tyrannical forces, all they need to do is make it too costly" Rebuttal: The sole purpose of a tyrannical government is its existence - a RSTG will do everything it can to defend it (Round 3). The only alternative to crushing the rebellion is to surrender its authority, which all RSTG will never accept. The tyrant simply has no choice other than to confront the rebels and fight to the bitter end. This is fundamentally different with the Civil War - one side simply wished to be left alone, while the goal of a rebellion is to overthrow the tyrant (new). Thus no cost can be too costly - human or otherwise. Contention no 4: "If the armed populace can cost the RSTG enough resources either economically or militarily, then there is a chance that it might fall apart itself from internal fighting" Rebuttal: The first job of any tyrant - indeed the first sign of any reasonably smart tyrant, and how they likely came to power in the first place, is the complete and systematic elimination of other domestic factions and dissents by any means necessary, including political assassinations. Furthermore, combating external forces (the rebels) will actually reinforce the loyalty of the tyrant's deputies, similar to the way 9/11 unified the country (new). Only when the RSTG is actually losing ground and the threat of being overthrown is imminent, which is unlikely in the case of the US, then internal fighting may significantly impact a RSTG. Thus, historically, AFAIK, no RSTG has collapsed due to internal fighting while combating rebels. If my opponent can refer to one such example, it would be most welcomed. Combating against external tyrant: Contention no 5: "a tryannical [sic] government would not become tyrannical because its citizens were armed", thus a net positive effect. Rebuttal: Armed citizen during external invasion (and before the defeat of the defending army) may do more harm than good. Deeply unpopular measures such as high tax and draft law, which may be unpreventable, required and justified during conflicts, especially against an external invasion, may lead to riots, protests and even rebellion. A legit government's capability to wage war against external force will be crippled if citizen were armed during conflict, thus may resort to even more extreme and heavy handed solution, thus a net negative effect, and may do more harm than good (round 1). Contention no 6: Armed citizen is effective in combating invading army. Rebuttal: An organized militia - compulsory or voluntarily, with necessary chain of command, and provided with coordinated and efficient logistic, is far more capable at dealing with invading army than unorganized armed private citizens (Round 1). Thus given the choice, one should always goes for an organized militia instead of arming private citizens, unless as the last resort. Even in such case, arms is not the most in demand: ammunition and medicine usually face far more serious shortage. Invading army, unlike a RSTG, has no interest in keeping armed civilians, who would qualify for enemy combatant, alive, they can simply be bombed off the face of the earth similarly to the drone tactics of the US (new). And, finally, to address my opponent's new arguments: Contention no 7: Terrorist learned to use RPG without too much training (new) Rebuttal: Contrary to popular belief, militant Islamic in recent conflicts involving the US are quite well trained - most are veterans from the Afghan-Soviet conflict as insurgents, which were, ironically, trained by the CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org... The CIA training method proved to be an enduring success, and was used in the design of recent terrorist training camps, which "usually takes the form of basic physical fitness training, progression to weapons training, training in armed assault techniques and bomb making". https://www.mi5.gov.uk... On a lighter note, I would like to indulge the reader to a video of a Taliban who stepped on his own IED and detonate it. This prove that, handling IED is usually a dangerous business. http://www.youtube.com... Contention no 8: "There is also the remote possibility that [...] an unorganized citizen militia may overthrow the invading army" Rebuttal: If my opponent can lay out a plausible scenario or strategy that an unorganized citizen militia may overthrow an invading army that defeated the US military in the first place, I will *gladly* concede this point (new). Contention no 9: US government will turn into a tyrant when faced with external invasion Rebuttal: If the defender is winning, there is no reason for a government to turn into a tyrannical government while combating external force. One can easily see the reason why by reading job approval of FDR (~ 70-80%) and Truman (~87%) during and immediately after WW2, and that of Bush right after 9/11 (~ 90%). Due to the extreme patriotic nature of the US population, combating external invading forces is extremely popular in the US. When a government has an approval rating of ~80% with draft law in effect, marginal tax rate at ~90%, then there is no reason to turn into a tyrant - about everything the government do has broad and feverish support anyway. http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu... http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu... http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu... If the defender is losing, then even turning into a tyrant will means a defeat anyway. And since a defeated government will no longer exist, the question is moot.