> the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear

About the one thing this situation does not need is armed randos taking matters into their own hands. Currently, Seoul is in a constitutional crisis. The President is required to lift martial law. He has not yet done so. If people on the streets started shooting at each other, he'd have legitimate reason to send in the military. Korea's lack of a 2nd Amendment is one of the things keeping this constitutional crisis from what would have been the stupidest civil war of the millenium.

I have bad news for you about which side of things a lot of the 2nd amendment fans are gonna be on if this comes to the US.

The history with actual cases of private arms being used to support or to resist government tyranny in the US can be generously described as "mixed".

It's also telling that so many instances like that, in the US and elsewhere, start with "... and then the good guys (or sometimes bad guys) seized a barely-guarded state armory". It's debatable how relevant private arms are to the resistance of tyranny anyway.

Foreign occupations are a whole other matter. When the call's coming from inside the house, plenty of your fellow "freedom-lovers" are helpfully using their liberty to liberate you from your liberty.

No it doesn't. People out in the streets brandishing their guns would only make the situation worse, not better. It's also worth noting that the 2nd Amendment didn't prevent a January 6 either.

The 2nd amendment was added because the founding fathers didn't want a federal military. Instead, they wanted every state to have its own militia [1]. The interpretation that it means every private citizen can own a gun is modern not historic. It wasn't until the 2008 DC V Heller case that the right to firearms was actually established.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29