In the Virginia ratifying convention debate, George Mason said:

"No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence,--yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed,--what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.

And if that 'militia' was not the army itself, but a force that could counter a rogue army?  Who then would it be? Yes, a peaceful agreement amongst a people and its [equally armed to the teeth] servant.

And the left's argument of which weapons are allowed ought to be immediately closed.  There ought be no discussion about what we are "allowed" to have. We have the right to counter such force with an equal force.  If rifles are the norm for forces directed by a tyrannical government, then appropriately armed citizen militia is with rifles.  This is not about violent overthrow of government, but of defense against that of an oppressive one.  A just government which follows that which defines it has no worries with a force capable of defending against it, because a just government earns the support of the people as well.  

And frankly who might argue that a tyrannical government has the right to overcome the liberties of the citizenry?

Indeed, no argument by the left, or anyone supporting the consideration by government that we ought to have our ability to defend from illegitimate force taken away by insufficient armament is valid.

We have allowed the debate to frame our options away. We have allowed the fallacy of safety through individuals disarming to obscure the actual reason for maintaining the right to defend in the first place. The lie that "flintlocks and muskets were what the founders meant" has been told so often, there are the imbecilic class who will forever believe it.

A revolver in the hands of government requires a revolver in the hands of the people.  A rifle in as likely a situation thus cedes the need for equivalent counter force.  And if there is a mechanization directed by our government to level our homes, and destroy our lives, why would we decline our selves the ability to defend against it. That would be illogical.

No argument by the left, can overcome the simple math of self preservation instilled in us by our creator.  Our natural rights ought not be so easily bargained away through a blind trust in government, and especially one that repeatedly attempts to abridge so much of the document which the second amendment places an exclamation mark upon.