Your the one who doesn't get it, stop beating people over the head with the second amendment and try actually READING IT.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere does it say anything about opposing a tyrannical government, or anything about the TYPE of arms allowed, funny how you pro-gun people seem to keep missing the words WELL REGULATED MILITIA. This was written when the country had no standing army, and was still in danger of attack by the British, Spanish, and Indian Nations, also at the time Rifles were still quite a rarity, all guns were muzzle loaded single shot, and not very accurate beyond about 40 yards, a professional soldier under ideal conditions MIGHT get off 4 shots in a minute. No way they writers of this could foresee the advances in weaponry that have taken place or the creation of the US military. They seemed to have had the model used by the Swiss in mind.
You cannot just read it - you must read it against the backdrop of history and how the courts have interpreted the words.
Actually there are numerous court cases and commentary by judges and legal scholars in the US that one of the intents of the Second Amendment is to allow the populace to oppose the civil government. Not all that surprising considering US history and the American Revolution.
This is a theme that has run through US history from the time that the US Constitution was drafted and the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the US Constitution). This was made quite clear by the Founders.
The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.
The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive.
The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.
This was explained in the 2008 Heller decision by the US Supreme Court which 5-4 found that there was an individualized right to bear arms independent of the "well-regulated militia" provision noting the fear that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370 (2008).http://www.law.corne.../07-290.ZO.html
UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America
, notes that since before the Amendment was proposed, many citizens have discussed the right to bear arms as a guarantee against tyranny as well as a feature of a federal system. His reading of the history finds more support for this anti-tyranny idea than for the Supreme Court's current doctrine from Heller that the Second Amendment supports a right of personal self-defense.
The central thesis of Winkler's book is that there is no black and white - he says Americans have possessed both a gun culture and a gun control culture. Americans' devotion to guns has been accompanied by extensive regulation of those guns. Today, he feels, should be no different.
However to say there is no history behind the idea that US citizens can take up arms against their own domestic government in certain instances is inaccurate.
You could argue that the time for such action is long since past given the march of history (my position BTW) but that is only an opinion.