One of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to enable the citizens to resist tyrrany. This causes anti-gunners to present a ridiculous and troubling argument: that gun rights should be surrendered because resisting gun owners would be crushed by the might of the US Army.
This is troubling because it illustrates the liberal desire to turn the guns of the state against all they find objectionable. You see this in their attitudes towards tax and regulation, but it’s always masked by the enforcement agents being agencies like the IRS (who actually buys a lot of JHP ammo!), instead of the Army.
It is also a misguided argument on two fronts: it assumes military loyalty, and it ignores the reality of insurgency.
If crushing resistance with tanks and drones were so easy, we would’ve been done with Afghanistan a long time ago. However, armed resistance mingled among civilians is difficult to root out, and would only be more so as the collateral damage became more important to the average American (as it would on our soil, versus drone strikes on random Afghani camps including war-crime “double-taps”). Tanks and drones would not be shooting at my house, because I live surrounded by Obama voters.
Perhaps most insulting is the idea that the Army would bring their terrible power to bear on American citizens. The President may be Commander-in-Chief, but the servicemen swear their oath to the Constitution. Politics within the service are diverse, and many soldiers are also recreational shooters, hunters, and collectors off duty and big believers in their right to armed self-defense even outside the uniform. To assume that government employees would robotically follow orders and rules, without regard for their own interests, goals, or principles is the same Liberal fallacy that ignores the possibilities of regulatory capture and corruption. There would not be a unified force turning its guns on Americans; at best, it would be a fractured and hesitant force because of the morality and character of its individual servicemen.
Finally, it’s troubling as a matter of character. Anti-gun advocates believe that their argument “if you fight, you’d die” necessarily leads to the conclusion “you should never fight, nor be prepared for a fight.” The unstated premise needed in that argument is that dying is never worth it – that there is no principle, freedom, or group more valuable than one’s own continued existence. The principle goes unstated because Liberals cannot imagine something greater than themselves; a trait that drives their hubristic approach to legislation and a managerial structure to government and the economy.