All but the most oppressive government doesn't lightly kill its citizens. It instead sets up a propaganda campaign, paints an image of dangerous dissidents, and tell the common people to fear them and join the good (that is, the government's) side. And you know what: rifles works "perfectly" in that framework. If I were a covert agent in a dictatorship and if I had no conscience, I'd propose letting a few individuals get away with their rifles, and the government can go a merry chase to protect "public safety" while associating everyone who wants a better government with those "terrorists".
In that case I want to demand legislation to have rocket launchers, AA-manpads, propane tank cannons, Shilkas (ZSU-23-4, they work very well for the ground, especially in urban areas, never know where that armored police trunk will roll by) and so on. Semiautomatics and pistols would be a joke there.
Is there any recent example of any of these millitia groups successfully opposing the US government and winning?
- Waco Seige?
- MOVE standoff, where Uncle Sam bombed a whole city block.
I wouldn't call those successes exactly.
Afghanistan. Not just the American government, the USSR had to withdraw from there as well just about 20 years before.
Also, can't think it would have been legal during the Soviet occupation. Presumalby we should then ban the guns here as well if we are to follow the model then?
Or, if we don't then I want an ammendment to let me have Stinger missles. Pretty sure just semmiautmatics and pistols wasn't quite enough to shoot down military helicopters and blow up whole convoys between mountain passes.
Also, from the history of recent internal conflicts (e.g Ukraine) a militia fighting its own government can obtain and use tanks and artillery quite easily as there are plenty of people on the both sides who are trained to use such equipment.
assault rifles have always have been illegal, assault-style weapons are different from assault weapons, and are the only thing that has ever been under popular political debate
Armor piercing rounds are legal to sell, purchase, own and shoot. Steel-core rounds are illegal to manufacture or import.
Teflon-coated rounds are a fantasy. They exist, but do absolutely nothing to make them more effective - instead, they are intended to extend the life of a gun's barrel by limiting wear.
Tanks are not illegal. Armed tanks are also not illegal, provided the main weapon is registered as a destructive device, along with any active explosive or incendiary rounds for it. Training rounds are (e.g. chalk) are unregulated.
I oppose all firearms regulation, period - but let's get our facts straight. :)
You are actually quite wrong. All those weapons you mention are useless for dealing with small groups of people. Those weapons are for taking out huge installations and entire countries.
Even the most oppressive government you can imagine does not kill its citizens in mass, they do it in small numbers. And rifles work perfectly fine to protect against that.
They might not help if the government decided to take out an entire city - but the government can't do that very often before having no one to govern.
Look at Syria and ISIS. What weapons are they using against the established government of the area? (Not making moral judgments here by saying "established", just using them as an example.) They are using small arms, not fighter jets.