We're not going to war either over such wedge issues as you mention. We did not resolve to revolutionary war until King George made an effort to disarm us.
especially in the North Americas or in Northern Europe. The gun's presence or lack thereof means nearly nothing. Now, like I said, it might be culture, where owning an AR might have some type of intimidation effect on big-for-their-britches politicians and their professional federal army, but I don't think so. Honestly, I think it's a cultural myth. You & I have fairly benign governments, all told. I don't think that any arming of the populace will shift our freedoms. Where I'm from, the person who decides to use a longarm to push for additional rights, especially proactively, ends up looking like a nut. We're not going to go to war with the army over a 5% shift in tax policy or the legality of gay marriage and marijuana, which is the level at which the 'oppressiveness debate' is currently taking place.
Wholeheartedly agree on this last point.
Now, I'll agree that the ability to own an AR-style weapon is a decent proxy for the freedoms we currently enjoy, and that our net freedoms are higher if we've that ability. But, I don't think that civilian weapons are any real defense against government oppression.
edit: oh yeah, I completely agree that defense vs. gov't is the intent of the 2A. That's why I think that the 2A thematically includes IED supplies, grenade, rockets, etc.