Huh?
History throughout the world shows that as governments become more powerful, bigger, more controlling, as they become more tyrannical, the governments more and more restrict or take away the guns of the citizens.
Another factor is the overpopulating of the country. As populations increase the governments exert more control and there becomes less and less personal individual liberties. The US is the fastest growing country in the world, mainly due to immigration, and the high birth rates of latinos, blacks, and new immigrants. There will be 400 million people in the US by 2050 and over a billion by the end of the century.
I dont see any way at all that guns will be legal for citizens to own or possess in a United States which has a population of a billion people.
Fair enough, but think of what a cunning tyrant could make of the flipside. "Our citizens vote; our citizens own guns. Therefore the United States is a free land!"
Think of it this way: no tyrant wants to be known as such. Moreover, any tyrant with common sense knows that there has to be compensatory "freedoms" allowed - provided they don't threaten the regime. In some societies, it's been licentiousness. In others, it's been religious freedoms.
Who's to say it can't be the gun and the vote this time 'round? The Communists gave us all an object lesson on sham democracy. After those regimes, we know that the mere existence of a ballot box isn't enough to establish democracy.
Could the progress of weapons technology and instruments of duress (i.e., Predator drones) make the Second Amendment merely theoretical with respect to resisting tyranny, just as the one-party state made democracy a sham? That's the question that needs answering.