This argument implies that the tyrannical government is willing to obliterate any resistance out of existence, collateral damage be damned. Tanks, missiles, biological weapons, nukes, all will destroy the people and places they're attempting to subjugate and rule. If their goal is to rule over a steaming wasteland, fair enough. Otherwise it makes far more sense to minimize damage when stamping out opponents to their tyrannical rule. Meaning there's most likely dispatched troops, admittedly better outfitted than your average citizen, but they'd be outfitted with about the same gear the troops are already using and they're not exactly a 0 casualty death squad. In fact, it wouldn't look too different to warfare in the Middle East. At the point tanks and missiles are reasonable options, the second amendment has already enabled a fair amount of resistance to a tyrannical government. Not to mention at that point we'd be far beyond following the rules imposed by said tyrannical government, including magazine limits and firearm restrictions, and the resistance is better armed than they were to begin with