That's a fair take. However, history shows us that, for every nation, the probability of those two statements becoming true approaches 1 as time progresses. The fact remains that there exist criminals in society who would harm my family and I for personal gain or pleasure if they had the chance, and I would like to have the means to defend myself from them.

> your government is run by dangerous criminals ready to take you and your freedom by brute force.

Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny.

Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.

Our track record of defeating armed insurgencies is miserable. You’re also overlooking the nature of waging war on your own people. The military will follow a tyrannical dictator, until it doesn’t. In Bangladesh, for example, Pakistan killed hundreds of thousands of disarmed Bangladeshis. Thanks to smuggled arms from India, Bangladesh was able to put up some sort of resistance. Eventually, Bangladeshi members of the Pakistani military defected. Bangladesh could never have defeated the military with individual arms alone, but had they not been able to start a war they may have been brought into submission before pushing the military past the breaking point.

I'm not only hearing you say "maybe" a lot about the effectiveness of gun ownership, but also that wars against internal foes are wildly unpopular, and that the military may decide to stop supporting the government. Agreed on all counts.

Consider this though, we have repeatedly conducted studies that show bringing a gun into your house increases the chance of gun death.

Maybe, perhaps, given the chance, gun ownership will help stave off tyranny.

Oh boy, wait until you see the stats about what car ownership does to you and your families chances of dying in an automobile accident!

Can't wait to argue with all the car owners that say owning a car will help protect them against crime and car accidents, as well.

> Even more interesting to me is the idea that the American government has such a hold over the patriots in the military that they could be commanded to enforce tyranny.

Tyranny generally doesn't come overnight. There are plenty of things you can ask soldiers to do that they'll feel uncomfortable about but still do it, and then in eighteen months when it's time to reenlist they decline. A decade later you've got only zealots.

> Or, that owning an assault rifle is some antidote against the best funded military in the world, which has been fighting armed insurgencies for years.

Because we sure handed it to those Iraqis, and the Vietnamese before that.

Counter-insurgency is hard. Having planes and nukes doesn't help you when the bridges and cities are friendly assets. Morale is low when you're fighting your own people. You can't guard every military resource with hundreds of soldiers, but that means the one guarded by twenty can be overrun by a hundred civilians if they're armed.

And it only takes one bullet to kill Hitler.

So what I'm hearing you say is that you feel an american insurgency will be effective and persistent. Where is the confederacy?

You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time. But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms. I think if you did a poll today you'd find that the pro-slavery contingent is well below the threshold.

> You may recall they did manage to put up quite a fight once upon a time.

If I recall correctly they both lost and lost their rights - whether we consider those rights the right to own slaves or leave the union.

> But an insurgency requires a sufficient number of people who feel strongly enough to take up arms.

Not true. "The accidental guerilla" by David Kilcullen is a great book on this idea. I'm wondering though for what reason you feel the confederates felt less strongly than gun owners do today.

You mean losing to insurgencies for years?

Are you talking about the wars where for example maybe conservatively 100000 Iraqis have died while about 5000 coalition troops have? Is that how you see winning going down for american gun owners, too?

Winning is not about body counts; it's about reaching your strategic objectives.

What strategic objective do you see american gun owners achieving against the american military?

Preserving their rights.