| it's harder and harder to sympathize with the idea that firearms in the US could effectively combat governmental tyranny. People keep trotting out this argument, and it remains just as wrong. "Regular" firearms by themselves probably aren't enough to resist the US government, but that isn't the point. Firearms are just one tool out of many that would be in play if an actual armed revolution broke out. And what people gloss over are factors like: 1. Military units that defect to the "rebellion". Now the rebellion has tanks, airplanes, drones, etc. 2. IEDs and other improvised munitions which are capable of doing more damage that just, say, an AK-47. 3. The idea that "quantity is its own quality". Enough people, armed with AR-15's or AK-47's can constitute a formidable force just through sheer numbers. Anyway, nobody is out there pretending that they are going to overthrow a hypothetical "tyrannical US government" using nothing but light weapons. But that doesn't mean that those light weapons aren't still important. |
Unless you believe a bunch of randoms with rifles are a match for a professionally trained army equipped with the latest tech. In which case I think Iraq may wish to disagree with you.