If the second amendment exists to "shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical" we have to ask if the government has actually become tyrannical.

As a staunch supporter of the 2nd, I have always had a problem with this description. In the 17th and 18th centuries, revolt and rebellion were actual possibilities. In the 19th century it was proven that the people could use the political process to fracture the union and attempt to withdraw from that agreement....until the Union decided to force them back into the agreement.

In these times, let's be real. There is no possibility of an armed revolt having any type of success. There are simply too many factions to attempt to lead anyone anywhere. Its is much like the Ireland of old with all of the different clans. As an outside force (the Union, in this example) it would be far too easy to make deals with one group to have them proxy your fight against another group, etc. There would be zero unity among dissenters and they would be easily quashed.

Besides the amount of fire power and force the government has these days.

To me, the 2nd provides me with the right to defend my property and my person against tyranny in the form of self defense. This is actually one of the main tenets supporting the existence of the 2nd. If the state prevents you from defending your self from someone intent on infringing upon your life, liberty, or property, how can you possibly consider yourself to be free?