I always got the impression that the ragtag gun toters vs the actual military was just a strawman kind of thing. If arming civilians is presented as a means to keep the government from going full tyranny, the route wouldn’t be conventional war between the two, it would be targeted assassinations of a handful of individuals who enable the tyranny. If confrontation with the military is even on the table at all, it’ll be via guerrilla tactics, not an open test of power.

But even playing devil’s advocate and taking those pro-gun points at face value, that argument breaks down when you look at characters like Trump: the government has gone tyrannical, but rather than stepping up to take out the tyrant like the 2A nuts have wet dreams over, they’re all too busy trying to suck the tyrant’s micro-penis to realize anything is wrong.

…then again, US current events are a single mustache short of being a copy and paste of the Nazi’s rise to power to power in 1920’s germany. The people who would benefit from being armed right now aren’t the ones who are armed. Encouraging them to change that feels like dumping fuel onto the fire of an already flaming dumpster, but if you’re one of the metaphorical Jews in the US, you might want to make yourself equipped to drop a few Nazis.

Also the intention of the constitution’s authors is also kind of moot. The constitution is amendable and was intentionally made to be a living document. Then vs now are barely comparable, to include the needs and challenges. Firearms are no exception. The power, availability, and social impact of guns are an entirely different animal than at the time the constitution was created.