See, this is where the argument falls apart.  I can see the argument from self-defense from criminal aspects, and I most certainly agree that targeting a weapon (assault rifles) that aren't the main culprit (hand guns) makes zero sense to me.  But, a tyrranical Government?  Really?  That's your fallback?  In what world do you live in where a supposed 'tyrranical US Government' intent on killing you, would be stopped by armor piercing bullets fired from a gun of that caliber and range?  Nevermind helicopters, nevermind jets, nevermind a 50 caliber that could punch a hole through your house and still tear you to pieces, a single drone, or hell if they're 'tyrranical' a cruise missile taking out your entire block is a mere pittance to them.  Hell, they could just send in a few of the SWORD prototypes in, and lay waste.  Why would they care?  They're tyrranical.

Again, I do like guns...but that whole self defense thing against the Government mattered when black powder was cutting edge tech.  A group of citizens stands no chance against a US Gov't willing to forgo rules of engagement and constitutional law (no armed forces in US cities).  That's just how it is, unless we relax things even further and allow private citizens to purchase heavy weaponry en-masse.

 But, a tyrranical Government?  Really?  That's your fallback?  In what world do you live in where a supposed 'tyrranical US Government' intent on killing you, would be stopped by armor piercing bullets fired from a gun of that caliber and range?  

And with all due respect, Rai, how is responding violence with violence a good answer to that? There are way too many people taking their CoD games much seriously.

There is no chance in hell that civilians could compete against the American military...that purpose is extremely outdated and fairly ridiculous in the modern context.

And with all due respect, Rai, how is responding violence with violence a good answer to that? There are way too many people taking their CoD games much seriously.

Well the military and all of it's high tech weapons couldn't stop terrorists in Afghanistan, so I don't see a scenario where our beloved military could take on Americans. 

@ bolded, well they may be tyrannical, I don't think their goal would be to destroy the country. 

And with all due respect, Rai, how is responding violence with violence a good answer to that? There are way too many people taking their CoD games much seriously.

This ignores so much social-political context. 

1. Guerilla Warfare

2. Money (civil war => fewer taxes => less/no pay for military.) 

3. Civil War =/= War against another country. Military must kill family and friends over disagreement. I don't see that happening. 

4. External parties. Let's say the U.S is at war with another country AND there is a civil war. 

5. Personal interests - there will be people who are more targetted than others. Say, a politician. Having an armed citizenry is more frightening than having an unarmed citzenry for this despotic politician. 

Sure, if we think of it like U.S Government vs. Waco, then it seems hopeless, but there are real world and historical examples of political instability, and anybody who owns a weapon will be much safer in such a situation than anybody who doesn't. 

Yeah, but my M1A will protect me far better than a puny AR-15, who cares?  It may as well be a .22.