IEDs were far more of a problem in Afghanistan than small arms.

Yep. And who do you think have the easier time getting ingredients for an IED, the person with a gun or the person without a gun?

Who has the better chance at ambushing and getting away with the enemys weapons: the one with the gun or the one without a gun?

You can do a lot of damage with IEDs, but you can’t overthrow the government with IEDs.

Look at Turkey. The primary tool was encrypted communications and information dissemination. That’s modern power that citizens should have. Right now power comes from information and the preservation of speech and private communications, not a few handguns and rifles (or IEDs).

When the 2nd amendment was written a gun was relatively way more powerful than it is in today’s world. If you had a group of men with guns you were basically on par with the government military.

IMO Turkey has mostly failed now.

However, I'm not saying I'd want them a civil war, just that it failed despite doing everything "right" it seems.

That's an away match.

Can you elaborate?

I believe he's referring to the Taliban's ability to hold off two modern armies (USSR in the 80s, USA in the 00s) with a much more basic arsenal than either super-power brought to bear.