Everyone seems to get lured right straight into the contentious aspect of this whole premise and thus focus on the debate between if, what, and how a conflict between citizens and government would take.
I would like to back on out and focus on the context of the statement in general;
Why is the POTUS even framing the second amendment in terms of winning a conflict with it’s own citizens at all?
Isn’t he inherently telegraphic his problem with the second amendment? That citizens may be able to defend themselves against government?
It’s rather chilling
He’s saying that the possibility of using the US Military to subdue elements of the American population is on his mind, and on the minds of his senior advisors. It has been discussed in cabinet meetings.
And the court stenographers never challenge him. Which tells you something about them.
Probably because that is why the 2nd Amendment is there. So citizens can have the means to defend against JoBama's tyrannical government.