> Literally every single example you're going to reply with is wrong Well, this is a very extraordinary claim… also, one that makes me feel like any potential

> Literally every single example you're going to reply with is wrong Well, this is a very extraordinary claim… also, one that makes me feel like any potential example will be dismissed by you, as you seem to have essentially considered every single instance of armed conflict involving firearms. The rest of your comment goes over several examples but I think the foundation is flawed. There is no scenario where there would be 10 million AR-15s vs 10k “mechanized infantrymen.” It’s also akin to saying matches are useless in a competition to see who can detonate the biggest sick of dynamite. Just touching on your first example. Of course to win an international war against the largest empire on earth, you will need more than just firearms. However, the mere existence of an access to firearms is an undeniable factor in the way things turned out. Do you really believe independence would have been gained through “strong civic organization and rule of law” - as you claim? You then follow that by saying if that doesn’t work, whoever has more cash and weapons usually wins… certainly not what happened in the revolutionary war… nor the next big conflict (war of 1812).