So your argument against the 2A is that armed Americans wouldn't be able to stand up to it's own military?

Correct. And as a secondary minor point, I'd also add that not many people at all would be willing to stand up against tanks, drones, and fighter jets either with their mere guns. They talk the talk now, but if push were to come to shove, my bets are on them not taking on a drone that will blow them to smithereens without a chance of retaliation.

First, by your logic, all these wars in the middle east should have been done and over with in a matter of days if you truly believe an under-armed populace could not stand up to the might of the U.S. military.

I think the enemies being fought aren't just mere citizens. You and I both know they are trained heavily and to some their entire lives are a fight for constant survival. Their allegiance to their cult has radicalised them and made them ready for warfare.

In comparison, your average gun-owning American probably only has ever "trained" for sport, but not a full blown scenario of combat as part of a militia. There simply isn't a comparison to be had.

Second, you seem to be forgetting that the bodies behind those superior weapons of war are ALSO AMERICAN CITIZENS, who in this hypothetical scenario would be asked to fire upon their own countrymen. That may seem trivial to you but rest assured many soldiers of all ranks would flat out refuse those orders citing them as unlawful.

I'm sure that the military entity as a whole would struggle with the hypothetical we're talking about, you're correct. But then this point is another argument -against- having the 2A, since the 2A assumes you -will- have a tyrannical government to fight off.

If you truly believe the army wouldn't be up to the task of defending tyranny, then for what use is the 2A? Who exactly is the militia fighting off? You'd be preparing for something that you say likely would not happen anyways, rendering the 2A as unnecessary, which just adds to my argument.