> if the federal government comes after you, they are doing so with tanks and helicopters
What is that supposed to do against the domestic population? Would they use their tanks and planes to blow up their own bridges and cities? Those are weapons used to claim territory from other governments. They're not very useful in a guerilla war where you don't even know who the enemy is.
> Vietnam is not a good analogy. Your average American is dumb, fat and undisciplined. The Viet Cong were none of those things.
Where does that leave the American government if that's the population they draw their soldiers and law enforcement from and they're each only trained for a couple of months? What do you do when half your new recruits sign up with the intent to turn against you as soon as you've trained them and provided them with weapons and equipment?
Fighting a civil war is hard. The US government is well aware of that, hence the bread and circuses.
> This is aside from the fact that an armed populace only encourages the government's law enforcement agencies to arm themselves more, and increases tensions in every encounter because the LEO has to assume the target is armed.
The solution to which is to expressly prohibit them from doing so. Random sheriffs have zero need for military tanks and riot gear and they shouldn't even be allowed to touch it. You don't need a SWAT team to serve a warrant on a check forger. You don't need a SWAT team at all, because anything it could legitimately be used for is the rightful role of the national guard.
Just because the domestic population is armed doesn't mean even 1% of them would shoot a police officer. And the people who would, tend to be the people who acquire firearms unlawfully regardless.
If the problem is that violent drug dealers have illegally-obtained guns, you can't solve that by taking legally-obtained guns away from peaceful hill billies and women who just want to feel safe walking home at night.