I agree with the OP that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to give the citizenry the means to resist a tyrannical government, by enshrining their right to arms equal to those of any standing army, but unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with this interpretation. Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the Heller case, treated the Militia Clause as a mere nullity (excess verbiage) that had no effect on the substance of the Amendment. To him, the Amendment came down to personal self-protection, and arms that went beyond that (for example, machine guns) could be prohibited as a "reasonable" exercise of governmental power.
Taking that in the third person, not necessarily the poster espousing it:
The view that the Supreme Court has the only power to "interpret" the Constitution is false. Congress can simply pass another law - which has led us to the present situation.
Since the Court bases much of their decision making on a "case law" viewpoint, the more laws that restrict our rights, the more "right" they see in doing so.
Let's not forget that the Court justified segregation and slavery for many decades. Were they absolutely right in those decisions? No. A court composed of Constitutionalist judges can and has reversed erroneous views of the law and corrected wrongs their predecessors inflicted on us.
Lawmakers and judges can, have, and will make bad decisions. The people can, have, and will support them doing it. Once the population is informed to the point that they see things need to be changed, and desire it, then they can make those changes. That doesn't always come peacefully. In American history, the case could be made that those who were actually right had to literally fight and overcome with the tools of war to enforce it. Those in the wrong refused to relinquish their power and oppression.
It's how the nation was first formed, and how we kept it one Union. The record is clear.
If we want to talk about having the 2A to protect our rights against a tyrannical government, then it follows that there will be some who can and will take direct action to protect them.
In today's political climate, it's considered problematic, even dangerous to suggest. That's why we don't see much conversation about it. Nobody wants to be the lightning rod for a very powerful opposition's response. At the very least, the general public will quickly view that person as some kind of patriot kook. At worst, the BATF will arrest you, seize your arsenal, and you find yourself rendered as a terrorist without benefit of rights or counsel. Nobody knows you are missing, and your family is hindered at every opportunity to speak out about it.
Be careful what we suggest is the proper interpretation. No sense being a martyr, unless that is something your survivor's can exploit to advantage.
