My country was founded on the idea of basically killing Frenchmen for sport and doing cross-country hikes through Belgium. That doesn't mean it's still a good idea. Just because the US was founded on the principle that violence against the state can be justified that doesn't mean at all that this is the standard you should measure yourselves by today.
It's not even reasonable anymore. Even if you arm an entire community against the tyranny of the government, what are they going to do against a battery of tanks or mechanized infantry? What about bombardment from a cruiser on the shore? A high altitude bomber? Fucking nothing is what they're going to do. People aren't interested in protecting themselves from the government anymore, because they can't. They're just interested in cowing the people around them to insane demands by potentially going postal.
Well, I'm not sure, and I say that as someone who is at best ambivalent regarding Second Amendment rights. There are a myriad of insurrections in the world that seem to be doing rather well against "the tyranny of the government," tanks and bombers or no. External supplies of more powerful armaments are typically possible, some pretty nasty explosives can be homebrewed just from the sort of things you'll regularly find in rural or urban areas, and in general, it is difficult to underestimate humanity's ingenuity for destruction. Certainly, an insurrection without external aid is likely to die miserably (it's very rare for such to succeed), but it's not going to die easily.
I won't even touch your flamebait characterization of everyone who supports gun rights. I may personally disagree with them in scope and scale, but I've encountered many who are quite reasonable.