About the one thing this situation does not need is armed randos taking matters into their own hands. Currently, Seoul is in a constitutional crisis. The President is required to lift martial law. He has not yet done so. If people on the streets started shooting at each other, he'd have legitimate reason to send in the military. Korea's lack of a 2nd Amendment is one of the things keeping this constitutional crisis from what would have been the stupidest civil war of the millenium.
A tyrannical state will not care that you are "legally" allowed to own firearms, and rebels do not get rights.
Also, I'll believe the claim that 2A is to prevent tyranny when I see it, because most of the time when you ask someone who supports the 2nd amendment about slave revolts, you tend to find out how little they care about "tyranny"
The history with actual cases of private arms being used to support or to resist government tyranny in the US can be generously described as "mixed".
It's also telling that so many instances like that, in the US and elsewhere, start with "... and then the good guys (or sometimes bad guys) seized a barely-guarded state armory". It's debatable how relevant private arms are to the resistance of tyranny anyway.
Foreign occupations are a whole other matter. When the call's coming from inside the house, plenty of your fellow "freedom-lovers" are helpfully using their liberty to liberate you from your liberty.
If the US military is united behind one group then that's that. If the US military is divided, then god help us caught in the middle.
For some reason, folks like to cite US foreign intervention failures as proof motivated locals with rifles can beat the US military, but that's not really the right thing to look at, as a bunch of things about those situations are materially different from a civil war (plus there is in every case a ton more to the resistance's armament and materiel than some guys taking their old AKs out of the closet, dusting them off, and digging into their prepper-crates of MREs)
Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time.
Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
Just ignore all the privateer ships that were loaded with cannons.
The founders, in 1808, appropriated funding for arms to state militias. [1]. Previously the arming of militias was up to the individual states. Some would have chosen to just have private citizens bring their own arms. Others would have actually set aside a fund to bring those arms.
And that's blatantly apparent when you think about the wars fought after the revolution. Cannons had to come from somewhere and you'd not expect a private citizen to have procured one.
That was, in fact, one of the reasons George Washington disliked the idea of militias, because you'd be arming untrained and undisciplined citizens with weapons they'd never used before and expect them to somehow know how to operate them.
> To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter. -- George Washington
Private gun ownership != the right to a private gun.
The "reality" in this sentence here is pretty solidly not accurate. The majority opinion in Heller asserted truths about the past that aren't born out by the historical record. Probably lifted straight from interest-group amicus briefs that agreed with what the majority was inclined to decide to begin with.
[EDIT] Whoops. I mean, that the above is often true in cases that cite history, even legal history, means it might still be true, but I was actually thinking of Bruen, where this happened to a degree that'd be comical if it weren't, you know, the Supreme Court.
