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

[stanc]

Montana asked you 'where would you draw the line to resist if you were able?' Don't see an answer...

Don't know how you failed to see it. First paragraph of post #112:

I presume you mean, what would I consider sufficient cause for me to try to kill American police or soldiers who are attempting to enforce a law that I disliked?

I really don't know, but probably not over gun confiscation since I agree with you that "No sane person would value an object over the lives of their family or self."

And, your logic that 'we would need weapons more potent than the AR-15' doesn't hold water when it comes to civil war or an insurgency. Any weapon is of value for an insurgent and just because a oppressive government may equip its army and police with the most modern of weapons doesn't mean that a civilian version of those rifles are worthless. Or even a obsolete rifle like a Garand or M-1 Carbine for example. An insurgent doesn't fight a conventional fight and your logic is only intended to minimalize the value and thus the justification for American citizens to own such firearms as the AR-15.

Unless you can show that an AR15 is all one needs to knock out tanks and IFVs, or shoot down attack helicopters and jet fighters, then it still seems like more capable weapons would be necessary.

And, no, your final statement about it being 'logical to assume' the US military would support a tyrannical US government in oppressing American citizens living in the USA, is not logical.

I did not say that the US military actually would support a tyrannical government. I said that in discussing the hypothetical of a "government gone bad," it seems logically necessary to assume military support of the government. For if it is assumed that the military would refuse to obey unconstitutional orders, how could the government impose tyrannical rule??? In order for there to be government tyranny, there has to be an enforcer. In the American colonies, the enforcer of British tyranny was the British military.

It is far more 'logical to assume' that our military would refuse an order to oppress and kill American citizens living in the USA

I totally agree with that being reality. However, doesn't that effectively negate the argument that private ownership of guns is necessary to be able to fight the government?