The 2nd Amendment Would Not Protect Citizens from a Tyrannical Government

Pro's only argument is that the US Military having superior weaponry and technology would overpower a resistance whose only weapons are semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. It is true that the US does have better weapons and technology currently, however, Pro failed to explain how starting off with superior technology alone is enough to beat the Resistance that I've described. The Resistance would have two advantages. First and most obviously, they have numbers. According to US Census Bureau, the US population is 313,914,040 as of July, 2012 [1], which means that if at least half of the population were to resist we would have at the least 156,957,020 resistance fighters. In contrast, the US Military has about 1,430,895 people on active duty [2]. In this scenario, the US Military is outnumbered more than 100 to 1. Recently in the case of Chris Dorner in California, one man turned the entire LAPD haywire trying to track down and kill him. Although they were successful, it took a much larger personnel and use of technology than one man with semi-auto weapons. That was the LAPD vs. One Man. The resistance will outnumber the military 100 to 1. Secondly, the Resistance is playing a defensive role as it is a new Tyrannical government that will be trying to impose its rule on the population. The Resistance can be scattered within the population and can use Geurilla tactics. It's comically unlikely that they would be standing in a Roman phalanx formation with AR-15s waiting to get carpet bombed. We can see how difficult it is fighting an embedded force with vastly inferior technology in the Vietnam War. That war was fought by the French for 11 years and then for 18 years by the USA. Both failed to conquer the communist forces who had no sea superiority and no air superiority. The Viet Cong guerillas along the north, both with inferior technology, eventually caused the western forces to withdraw, effectively defeated. The US Government would not rain artillery down on cities for two reasons. First they destroy the resources and infrastructure that they want. Secondly, killing loyal subjects would do much to cause them to lose public support from the other half of the population. No tyranny has ever indiscriminately killed off their population in large numbers. People were targeted for race, religion, political beliefs, etc. while of course, the government having made sure to demonize them first through propaganda so the ones spared would pump their fists in the air in celebration as "those" people are slaughtered. They certainly would not use nukes on its own most prized cities. Although the Resistance with semi-automatic weapons could succeed to resist a tyranny with semi-auto rifles, and other legal weaponry, with their numbers and favorable tactical position of embedded defense, they have the means to obtain more powerful weaponry. Military bases small and large as well as police stations with SWAT armories are scattered throughout the country. Starting from small victories and gaining more weaponry, this can snowball into greater victories, leading to the acquisition of even more weaponry. And remember this can be happening anywhere within a very large country and within short time frames of each other. It is unreasonable to think that centrally with your relatively small numbers, you could respond effectively to all of them. I believe that an armed population of Americans could effectively resist a tyranny, although it would not be easy and could take a long time and at great loss. [1] http://www.census.gov... [2] http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil...