system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: "People wanting guns to fight against a potential tyrannical government is stupid" isnt a good argument

Let me expand on the title: Many gun owners partially have guns to fight against a potential tyrannical government, which is one of the main reason the 2nd amendment exists 

Most people argue against this by saying: "you think your guns can hold up against the ridiculous arsenal the US government has?" 

My personal issue with this argument is that if there really did end up being a tyrannical govenrment where it was US gov vs US citizens, much of the military structure would probably break down and join sides with the "US citizens" side. In this scenario, wouldnt citizens having guns massively help the side of the citizens? 

(I want to clarify, Im actually more or less anti-guns, this is just an argument someone said that really stuck with me and I was sortof at a loss for how to argue against it, and found myself  agreeing with it.)
gpt
> much of the military structure would probably break down and join sides with the "US citizens" side  

Where do you get this idea from?  

A potential tyrannical government is not like in the Marvel comics where there is an evil, ugly evidently cruel individual who holds a sceptre and commands the army to hate people, thus some "true patriots" revolt against this, guns in hands and of course some soldiers are pure souls and join them.  

Tyrannical governments start from a popular position, usually a reasonable one at first: equality for all, or get our worker's dignity back, let's fight communism, let's fight capitalism, etc.  It's carefully born from a crisis, a contingency, a leader, propaganda and institutional support.  This is not something you fight back with guns (ask the chileans during the '73 coup, they directly targeted armed insurgents, also ask Colombian FARC or the Nicaraguan Contras.  There is no such thing as "good" and "bad" guys except in retrospect, and unless your gun has a time travelling device, hardly useful.  

So the view is not that "people with guns can't go against a tyrannical US government" but "tyranny as we know it is not something you shoot at".