A robust 2A is essential as the final barrier and insurance against the development of a extra constitutional government. I believe that as long as we have a strong 2A, that the price of tyranny will remain too high for those who may aspire to it.
But resisting tyranny also depends on other factors and assumptions:
That the government would not be willing to decimate it's people and it's infrastructure to achieve it.
That there are patriots at all levels of government who would help obstruct and sabotage such an effort.
That enough soldiers and police would refuse to obey unlawful orders so that the congruity of the would-be tyrannical force would fall apart.
There is ample history of civilian ownership of military small arms in the US. With the exception of the now highly regulated select-fire weapons, and now the effectual ban due to the Hughes amendment, there have been no special restrictions whatsoever. Indeed, for many, many years the DCM has supplied
Garands to competitors in the interest of encouraging civilian marksmanship skills. When was the last time a Garand, or an M1A was used in a robbery?
The M1 Garand, of course, is responsible in no small part for stopping perhaps the most infamous tyrant of all. And with the exception of clip vs magazine functionality, there is no performance disadvantage whatsoever of a Garand vs it successors, the M14 (M1A civilian version) and the semi-auto AR15.
Finally, although the Heller decision found historical bases for individual self-protection, hunting, recreation, etc., it was careful not to leave the impression that the only declared purpose in the Amendment was not a dead letter:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.
Note the court did NOT say that the prefatory clause was detached.
But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
The AR15 was designed specifically and purpose-built to protect the security of this free state. The government approves it for that very purpose in ongoing service to the country. If the primary and only stated purpose of the amendment is the protection of the security of a free state, then the one rifle that the state has approved for every soldier to carry in that role ought to be the most protected weapon in the land.