Aspiring cheesemaker only. Real cheesemakers are all-knowing.
I’m basing my assessment on my best analysis of the effects of security forces versus insurgents in situations such as Algeria, Egypt etc. Of course, I only tangentialy touch on the security literature when I have to get a sense of the situation for my own work so I want to be clear that I claim no real expertise.
That being said, it seems to me that:
(a) Given ruthless application of security forces, urban guerrillas can be eradicated. Algerians have proven this.
(b) Given modicum of support from population, or at least acquesance, even unpopular governments with effective security forces can maintain themselves and even prosper. See Algeria and Egypt.
But, let me expand on this as assumptions and premises matter here.
(sniper movie? I may get to see that in a few months…)
Well, here I see a flaw in your analysis.
Let us be clear on our premises, we need to clarify:
(a) Premise: arrival of tyrannical government in America - how and why, further
(i) degree of popular support
(ii) degree of opposition
Your example depends on large-scale popular revolt. I submit that a tyrannical government is most likely to arrive with popular support, rather than without. As such we should suppose a perhaps regionally located degree of support versus opposition.
Doubtful, e.g. Egypt every single male undergoes military training, majority in the army groundforces. I believe Algeria relied on similar scheme. Now, the quality of this training is no doubt low, but then this balence out against the security forces.
All things being equal, the same probably will be true of security forces versus rebels in the USA.
Get themselves eradicated? One has to be clear on the premises in which one is examining the issue.
First, my analysis is based on what I regard as the most likely scenario for the arrival of a tyrannical government:
(a) popular dictatorial coup-d’etat followed by imposition of “law and order” controls
(b) full use of said government of modern
i. security apparatus
ii. information/agit-prop apparatus: terror action/guerrilla action can be turned against those using it with effective propaganda by the state. I pre-suppose foundering of 1st amendment rights.
iii. Support of military and its technology.
As such, the self-same rebels above will face
(a) secret police and related apparatus, including of course SWAT teams to take out isolated elements
(b) counter-insurgents supporting the regime, also inserted in society, e.g. per Algerian strategy, using popular armed groups (importance of agit prop)
© high tech military seek and destroy for larger formations.
As such, I do not see 2nd Amendment style weapons holding as a true guarantee of political liberties. Nor do I see them as anti. I simply view this as irrelevant. The larger socio-political atmosphere, political traditions etc. are the true guarantees. If you get to the point in which these weapons matter, its already too late, IMHO.
This in the context of a domestic coup-d’etat. Overthrow of domestic government by some small cell of course is another issue, however in this case I again see 2nd amendment arms to be irrelevant (although perhaps useful on the agit-prop level insofar as they can undermine security), the real issue will be the armed forces and by extension popular access to military supplies. Military dissidance and leakage from arsenals will be the real sources, although to the extent that 2nd amendment arms have maintained a degree of working familiarity in a given population, I of course admit this is of both relevance and utility.
However, I think that overall 2nd amendment weapons as a realistic bulwark against tyranny is not a very realistic argument, nor really necessary per se. However, I do concede the symbolic value as well as the observation that the entire scenario depends on so many wild variables its impossible to really know.
