system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The notion that you would be able to defend yourself from a corrupt government is irrational.

Like the title says, many pro-gun advocates make the argument that they own firearms to defend themselves from a corrupt government (in this case, the U.S.), but don't realize they would be far from threatening to an organized fighting force with military equipment (national guard, army, etc.) This argument would be applicable in colonial America where most fighting forces were still in development and consisted mainly of militias. The point is that your 9mm won't be able to defend against coordination, a chain of command, and fully automatic weapons.
gpt
It's largely a matter of what you're willing to give up.

If a dissident guerilla group of terrorists decides to wage a long campaign against the government, hitting soft targets and retreating into sewers and basically waging a campaign of assassination and murder - well, most of them are going to die. They're going to get killed by soldiers.

But these campaigns, over the long term, have a tendency to destabilize a government and cause it, if not to fall entirely, than to come to the table ready to negotiate.

If you're willing to die in the hopes that your grandchildren might have a better future (because your children sure as fuck won't), an armed insurrection can indeed be effective.