Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments

Rule of the Debate can be seen in comment section. Arguments: Internal threat: We assume a reasonably smart tyrannical government (RSTG). By reasonably smart, it will do everything practical at its capacity to defend its existence. Armed citizens is not an effective defense against internal threat. Direct confrontation: RSTG will likely retain overwhelming strike capability, both strategically and tactically. Assuming direct confrontation, similar to what happened in the Civil War, the RSTG will be willing to use its strike capability against the rebels. Information warfare: Just because one possesses the same weapon does not means one possesses the same fighting capability of said weapon, due to the over reliance on technology and infrastructure of the modern army. The global satellite system will likely remains in government's control, so is the fuel and ammunition supply. All normal radio communication will likely be cut off or heavily monitored. RF jamming technology will likely be used by the tyrant. Guided missiles, the main armament of any modern war machine from warships to warplanes to tanks, are essentially useless without guidance system. That is not to mention an army of drones, which will likely remains in the hand of the RSTG. Strategic warfare: Fuel and ammunition supply is crucial in supporting any kind of modern army, which will likely remain in the hand of the RSTG. Fuel needs fuel dumps and refineries, ammunition need factories and storage facilities. They can be imported, but a RSTG will likely blockade the rebels. Warplane needs airfield and/or carrier, the latter is unlikely to be in the hand of the rebels. Any airfield, fuel dump, refinery, factory, ammo dump, will likely end up being bombed or cruise missled into oblivion. A likely scenario is RSTG's air supremacy will first destroy any strategic targets and airfields belong to the rebels, then decimate all ground forces, and finally drones will proceed with seek and destroy missions for extended periods. After all, it was strategic warfare that won the Civil War, and both World Wars. Due to both reason, any direct confrontation between the rebels and the government will likely end with disastrous result for the former, even if the rebels posses a large number of war machines defected from the RSTG. Guerrilla tactics: Guerrilla tactic takes decades to be effective. Guerrilla tactic requires tremendous scarify, one western civilization may not be accustomed to. Economic hardship is nothing compared to the hardship endured by guerrilla soldiers - bullets are the least of your concern; diseases, lack of drugs, food, and the trauma of the war is the real terror. A tyrant, with no concern for citizens, may employ terror, murder and execution tactics against civilians and family members of rebels - similar to Gestapo under Hitler. Can US partisans, never in their life faced against overwhelming odds, dulled by necessities of life, endure the hardship of a guerrilla soldier? . http://en.wikipedia.org...; Takes Vietnam War for example, the only side ever won against the US. The Vietnam War took 20 years to conclude, around 18 of which is against the US coalition, in the form of guerrilla warfare. That is to compare with the Civil War, which took less than five years. Civilian casualty amount to 400,000 to 1,100,000, counting only the North Vietnam side. The North Vietnam may have never won the war without the huge support of both China and the Soviet, not only in war machines but also in food, clothing, fuels and ammunitions. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Finally, drones changes everything. It can hover for days to look for potential targets, and cheap enough to be fielded en mass. With it, the greatest advantage of guerrilla warfare is gone - its ability to hide from view and only strike when the target is unaware and weak. US soldier will not fire on another US soldier or civilian: It appears that people consistently underestimate the length a person will go to obey command from authority figures. To quote the experiment, made famous by the paper "The Perils of Obedience": "Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion: The only viable option against a tyrannous US government is terrorism - as so convincingly demonstrated by most of our current enemies. But are US patriots willing to go to such length to protect their freedom? External Threat: It is far better to have an organized militia, compulsory or voluntarily, with necessary chain of command during an invasion as backup for the regular army than arming private citizen with heavy weapon: Usage of heavy weapon requires training - at least the basic kind, for safety and/or effectiveness. Example: Jagdtigers was one of the most advance tank destroyer in WW2. The 9.8 in think frontal armor is simply impregnable. However, due to poor training, the tank commander lost his nerve and retreated, exposed his weaker side armor, and eventually got destroyed. Superior weaponry is useless when the crew is not trained enough to use it effectively. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Coordination and chain of command during the war is extremely important. This goes without saying. An army of uncoordinated mob is ineffective compared to an organized militia. Ease of maintenance and distribution of ammunition and fuel, if necessary. Facilitate the recollection of such heavy weaponry after the war if necessary, to prevent such weapon to fall into the wrong hand. Armed citizens are attractive targets for murder and execution by the invading army. Citizen threat - or a popular tyrant - Adolf Hitler is a prime example. There is a different between a tyrannical government and an unpopular government - the two are not necessary correlated. Adolf Hitler was immensely popular in Nazi Germany. In fact, Nazism encouraged gun ownership of citizens - Jews are no longer considered citizens. The 1938 German Weapons Act relaxed many provisions of the 1928 gun control law, such as lower legal age, extend weapon permit duration, extend the list of groups exempted from weapon permit requirement, etc. The people discriminated by the new gun law were an extremely small fraction of Nazi Germany's population. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The Myth of Nazi Gun Control, . http://www.guncite.com... - a pro gun source. In a popular tyrannical government, as pro have said, cannot be countered by armed citizen. On the tendency of a government turning into tyrant: During an external invasion, there is a legitimate reason to suspend (a portion of) civil rights, at least from the point of view of the defender, since a defeat means a total and indefinite suspension of all rights. When faced with insufficient man power, a draft may be required. Draft law, however, is extremely unpopular in the US. Living cost may also skyrocket. High tax may be required. In such cases, draft resistance, riots, protests, strikes may erupts. Without a mean to control the population in such case may lead to a collapse of supply infrastructure to support the war efforts, or an internal collapse. Internal conflict would put a disproportionate burden on the capability of a state to face external threat. Armed citizens would put additional difficulties in maintaining public order and stability, which is already strained in times of war. Extraordinary circumstances requires extraordinary measures. This is why such exception was so clearly codified into the US constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2.