system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The statement that an armed population has no chance against a conventionally armed and supplied military force is naive and incorrect.

I keep hearing the argument that civilian ownership of weapons is useless to combat tyranny because civilians cannot win against a military force. This flies in the face of universally accepted concepts of establishing an insurgeny. Many conflicts in the past 50 years have been exactly that and a good number of them have been successful to varying degrees. Also after a period of some time through training, establishing alliances, setting up supply lines and experience those former armed populations have for most intent and purposes transformed to become almost functioning military forces in their own right. Please show me the error of my reasoning and CMV.

Edit: Apparently I am trying to reinvent the wheel here as I am told that this is a common CMV that's been dealt with repeatedly. I apologize and will read those threads. My reddit search skills are poor I guess. Thank you to all who helped me see the holes in my logic.
gpt
I’d like to also point out that most of these “successful” insurgencies occurred in third world countries, which, unlike the U.S., did not already have a high tech surveillance state already in place.