Isn't this a faulty premise in the first place? To overthrow a tyrannical government without (large part of) the army on your side seems infeasible in the age o

Isn't this a faulty premise in the first place? To overthrow a tyrannical government without (large part of) the army on your side seems infeasible in the age of cluster bombs and armored vehicles. So before armed civil war it seems logical to use alternative approaches: * Non-violent resistance (cripple the economy). * Appeal to dissident factions in the army and have them do the fighting, after all the US army is pretty closely connected to the populace, and if you can't get them on your side you've already lost. * Have a sufficiently pluralistic system in the first place so that concentration of power to an extent that extreme becomes impossible. There just seems to be such a mismatch between goals and means when it comes to small arms and prevention of tyranny.