True, but this is in the context of abject authoritarianism right? Under tyranny?

The US in Afghanistan, for all its successes and failures was on a nation building adventure, hoping to win hearts and minds. It was following rules of engagement, not operating an outright slaughterhouse.

In the context of abject authoritarianism, the government will just straight up execute you, or crush you with a tank like the PRC at Tiananmen Square.

This feels like a romanticized Lone Ranger against Big Brother kind of thing. The Fantasy of the Good Guy with a Gun™. I don't think it plays out that way in real life.

The worst the government can do in a country with 300M+ guns in circulation is "boil the frog", and hope to dear god the pot does not boil over at any point. It's not a fantasy. It's literally how the US was founded in the first place.

Well, yes, that's how it was founded in the 1700s with slaves, flintlock rifles, no suffrage, and most people had syphilis. A lot has changed since then. Like, well, tanks.

A counter narrative would be the Cultural Revolution as I pointed out. China's population in 1966 at the start of the Cultural Revolution was about 750mm people. By the time Tiananmen Square happened, it was 1.1b people. I'm looking for the numbers but I believe guns were pretty common.

I agree, a lot has changed since then. The governments have gotten a lot more abusive and intrusive, for example.

I dont think you can connect this argument with afghanistan, how do you see the connection there?

The Afghanistan army gave up rather than fight the Taliban, despite having far superior firepower and manpower.