I have been hearing some variation of this for years. They claim that our weapons are so inferior that it is basically pointless to have them.

Ignoring the fact that self protection is an inalienable right provided by god and protected by the constitution. Ignoring that it is my legally acquired property. Ignoring that most of the military are gun owners themselves and would disobey that order. Ignoring that every form of prohibition this country has tried on any social activity has failed spectacularly....

Let's just look at that particular point in more detail

You can't beat the army

Your ar won't affect a tank

You'd never get close to the president

All of which are completely true. But also completely irrelevant to what a gun means in a situation like that.

I don't have to beat the army. I just have to make the country ungovernable. And as we saw with the armed protests, sometimes that doesn't even require firing a shot.

One man with one gun(or no gun if hes a good actor) can barricade himself in a building and get dozens of police officers off the streets for hours.

Rice fields and desert caves have taught the military that advanced tech isn't an instant win button. And on home territory it's worse.

The political class lives in this country. And while I will never be able to get to them, I dont have to.

There are plenty of soft targets that cannot be protected. Most revolutionary movements start with graffiti campaigns before there is any fighting. Defacing the rulers favored places and leaving messages to unsettle.

If we get to American revolution part 2: electric boogaloo it will not matter that my gun is worse than their gun, or that they have a bunker. It will matter that I have some means to make myself ungovernable