> These days, nothing individuals (or even groups of individuals) can acquire holds a candle to what governments (the US being a world leader in this regard) ar

> These days, nothing individuals (or even groups of individuals) can acquire holds a candle to what governments (the US being a world leader in this regard) are equipped with, so there is no endgame for gun ownership as a means of defense against one's government. Even back in colonial times, your single musket was no match for the hundreds of muskets and handful of cannon that the government was equipped with. If the government wants to kill you -specifically- then it's going to do that. As a defense against tyranny, firearm ownership is effective in the same way that putting your valuables in a safe is effective. Neither are an absolute defense, but both raise the level of effort required from the attacker. For example, regardless of whether you think there actions were reasonably justifiable, the conflict between the Bundys and the BLM would have gone _very_ differently had the Bundys not been armed. They would have absolutely been quietly steamrolled by the government: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff> FedGov could have rolled in tanks, helicopters, or jets to eliminate the Bundys with zero friendly casualties, but that was a cost that they were entirely unwilling to pay. Again. If the USian government really wants to get you or your people, specifically, you cannot (and have never been able to) stop them. They've more money and men and materiale than you could ever hope to accumulate. This has pretty much always been true.