It is about how you and the people you collaborate use that M1A vs. the AR-15, just as much as the technology difference. Communists took over China despite their lesser technology, not the nationalists. 

It is the democratic provisions of the constitution that protects against a tyrannical govt, not the gun rights rubbish. You will overthrow a tyrannical government at the ballot box faster than a guerilla war. And if you are absolutely confident that the military, and police, won't turn on the people, then why do the people need guns to protect themselves from something that will never come to pass? It's not like any hypothetical tyrant will be capable of withstanding a simple unarmed take over of the Whitehouse and congress if the branches of govt with all the guns refuse to take up arms against the people.

The main reason the US military couldn't defeat terrorists in Afghanistan is because of needing to appear to have concern for human rights, and public image among allies and the US public. A tyrannical govt has none of those concerns, if the military is fully on board with protecting those in power.

Well, without much knowledge of the roots of that conflict, and with a simple glance at Wikipedia on the issue (which means I could be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the failure of the KMT had more to do with corruption and loss of US support, than proper use of firearms, didn't it?

Nah, I don't want anybody to have the power to kill, especially at more than arms length.

Sure, we can all dream of such a utopia, but nature allows for human beings to kill eachother, and even without guns, at more than arms length. I'm sure whichever country you live in the government has guns, weapons, bombs, chemical weapons, etc stockpiled. It's better for people to have a more equal capability of killing than for one group to have more capability of killing than the rest. 

Nah, call me niggardly, but I wouldn't grant anybody the power to kill, especially at more than arms length.