The populace there has access to pretty much all the guns they want but not much more. The govt has copters, tanks, airplanes, you name it. They've been pretty damned effective at holding the line vs the populace despite being very unpopular. The tide is perhaps turning somewhat recently, but not without a LOT of help from the US and others. Who's going to pressure the US govt if they go tyrant? No one.

I've made this argument here many times and it never really goes anywhere. I have no idea what'd actually happen, but I think the US govt could mantain control of an armed populace in revolt for a long, long time.

3rd and you seem to acknowledge that this view of the 2nd was valid at one time.  Now I try to establish this because many people argue with that even though it is pretty apparent historically.  To then say that the population has no hope as they once did against the government so this is now no validation of the 2nd . . . I find this specious.  The predetermination of who might win is not the point.  If the argument was ONCE valid it is STILL valid unless and until the Constitution is amended . . . no amount of preseason polling should be able to sweep it off the table.