It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.

That's what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter millenium ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.

Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.

Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.

It's totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.

Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they'd stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of "resisting unlawful government" moot.