system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that personal firearms can do nothing to "prevent tyranny" in the modern age. CMV

During discussions of gun control in the U.S., I often hear folks use rhetoric about defending ourselves from the government. This argument seems disingenuous or just not well thought out. The armed components of the government (the military, the police, the FBI, etc.) have weapons and information technology/infrastructure that so far surpass that of ordinary citizens that personal firearms seem almost inconsequential. While I don't believe the government **should** have a monopoly on physical coercion, it seems to me that individual citizens are just plain outmatched. If the government wants to kill/imprison/deprive you of liberties, it can pretty much do so with impunity, and no amount of personally owned firepower is going to be able to stop it.
gpt
The idea isn't that citizens maintain superior arms to the government. Standing toe to toe with an armored division, a collection of citizens with shotguns would be torn apart in minutes.

The idea is that citizens have something to work with, should the need for popular overthrow of the government present itself. Guerrilla and insurgent tactics would be the name of the game, not open warfare, but it's hard to do *anything* without a weapon of some sort to begin with.