The "want to be" gun confiscators would have a daunting job ahead of them

[stanc]

As all can see from the above, your post that I originally quoted, you were trying to make the point that a modern army cannot be resisted ( provide a credible counterbalance) by an armed populace. I disagree, and provided modern day examples of lightly armed insurgents doing just that. Your argument was invalid.

Wrong. I never said that an armed populace would be unable to resist a modern army.
I'm saying an armed populace does not deter invasion or oppression by a modern army.

I don't expect you to admit it, but that doesn't change the fact that our right to have firearms provides a final, and pretty effective, measure for us to protect ourselves from our government.

I won't admit it, because history doesn't support it.
The Afghans had firearms, but that didn't protect them from invasion by the Soviets.
The Colonials had firearms, but that didn't deter oppression by the British.
The Pennsylvania farmers and distillers who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion had firearms, but that didn't stop George Washington from leading the militia against them.

Having firearms would certainly enable the people to fight back, but history shows that the possession of rifles and pistols does not by itself deter government use of force.