Lmfao bruh, you’re either legitimately retarded or willfully ignorant. Both work in favor to be honest but yeah let’s keep this up.You literally just explained why it's antiquated and tried to say it's not. short of an air bombardment. Armed civilians no longer possess the force to oppose the full force of the military.
Funny thing is you did, you said you need to keep your guns in case the government becomes oppressive 'The more civilians armed with assault weapons means that the politicians are forced to hear the voices of the people. The US is very authoritarian and if guns are stripped from civilians, it’ll only get worse. Look at what was going on in Hong Kong where peaceful protests were met with armed force.' directly implying if the citizens of Hong Kong had been armed they'd have not been forced down by the government.
Funny thing is what you described there didn’t destroy my point at all. In my very first reply to you I said, “Some resistance is better than no resistance, obviously civilians can’t overthrow a military but at the same time, a coup within the military could occur...,” and yes, if the civilian populace of Hong Kong had weapons, they wouldn’t have been trampled over as easily as they’d been.
And just to bury your stupidity for the final time, when I said,
“The more civilians armed with assault weapons means that the politicians are forced to hear the voices of the people.” That means that the politicians fear repercussions by making choices that patriotic Americans will detest, for they don’t know which civilian(s) around them would retaliate negatively and radically.