Perhaps in a world where armed combat between civilians and the military only involves muskets this holds true, but exactly how do you expect to “exert your second amendment rights” when a squad armed with M16s, grenade launchers, body armor, and night vision goggles shows up to your door? A 9mm pea shooter?
Loads and loads of armed angry people with home court advantage are hard to defeat unless you are willing to just flatten the city. Drones might change that calculus some, but against a large insurgency in a huge city of millions?
If we are flattening our own cities, we are so far gone we are in climbing barbed wire to get across the border (in the out direction) territory. Some of my ancestors on my dad’s side did that in WWII to escape Stalin and Hitler both. I hope to never see such things.
A large number of voters seem to think it works.
> “exert your second amendment rights”
The second amendment is a prohibition on the government, so it is not a right to be exerted, but rather a natural right that is not to be inhibited.
> [...] when a squad armed with M16s, grenade launchers, body armor, and night vision goggles shows up to your door?
Guerrilla warfare has proven time after time that you should not assume the larger-numbered, better-equipped party will automatically win this type of scenario.