I still think that’s true, if we’re talking about revolt against the established government of your own national territory, rather than someplace where a foreign invader with a long supply chain has the tempting option of going home.
But in any case, I don’t think that you would disagree with the claim that the power differential between a citizenry with firearms and the military of a powerful nation was much much smaller in the 18th century than it is in the 21st. (And it was even smaller in the 16th, and will presumably be even greater in the 22d.) So if the point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee that the people can overthrow their government by violence if that government does enough things they don’t like, its effectiveness is definitely decreasing over time. (Unless you argue that citizens, alone or in unofficial groups, are entitled by the Second Amendment to the same kind of weapons the government has access to, but I don’t think anybody on this thread is arguing that. Although I wonder what the Founders would have thought of World War I technology.)
Re: One person’s notion of the point of restrictions on gun ownership. (part 3)
But in any case, I don’t think that you would disagree with the claim that the power differential between a citizenry with firearms and the military of a powerful nation was much much smaller in the 18th century than it is in the 21st. (And it was even smaller in the 16th, and will presumably be even greater in the 22d.) So if the point of the Second Amendment is to guarantee that the people can overthrow their government by violence if that government does enough things they don’t like, its effectiveness is definitely decreasing over time. (Unless you argue that citizens, alone or in unofficial groups, are entitled by the Second Amendment to the same kind of weapons the government has access to, but I don’t think anybody on this thread is arguing that. Although I wonder what the Founders would have thought of World War I technology.)