The 2nd says nothing about hunting, and the framers of the constitution, particularly Madison, specifically wrote extensively that the purpose behind the 2nd was to prevent another tyrannical government in the states, whether it was domestic or foreign.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/daniel-zimmerman/second-amendment-founders/
As you have simplistically cast it, yes, a bunch of lightly-armed irregulars aren’t going to fare well against a professional mechanized force.
But even illiterate peasants know better than to try to go toe-to-toe in such a situation, thus guerrilla / insurgent / asymmetric campaigns could be waged. I gather it took the Iraqi/Afghan insurgents almost no time whatsoever to realize that they fared poorly on the 2-way range in stand up fights so they attacked supply lines, launched one-off mortar/rocket attacks on targets of opportunity, ambushed patrols, etc.
Occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were also operating on remote battlefields somewhat of our choosing. Much of the logistics and pretty much all of the industrial base for the war was hundreds or thousands of miles away, typically with an ocean between it and the enemy. That would not be the case for some hypothetical domestic oppressive regime operating in the US. Military bases might be called forts, but as the Fort Hood incident showed, they’re hardly the hardened fortifications the title suggests. That’s to say nothing of the sprawling infrastructure of the modern economy, itself only hardened to the extent that it keeps the honest people out under fear of arrest.
Besides … modern economies are worth far more left operating as-is and interacted with via trade than warfare or occupation which can set them back a generation or more in a few short years.
For all the armchair sneering at the AR-15 design and 5.56x45, you’re arguing against a large volume of history insofar as its effectiveness as an infantry arm.
Insofar as “massacring children”, rifles - of which the AR-15 is a subset - are a relative drop in the bucket relative to handguns, knives, the human body itself, and blunt objects.
Think American Colonists against Britain.
Ah, but sometimes you look at the ballot, and all it is is politicos. On both sides. And ya’ can’t just vote Cthulu for the greater evil…
Sadly, I know all too well.
It’s all the same every where, language is the primary difference, as well as how the much the illusion of incorruptibility is projected.
The definition of militia supports the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” part.
Why if? 
That’s why I always write-in my own name.
Also “well regulated”. That phrase’s meaning then was not what big gubmint types today think of when they read it, i.e more and more regulations and control, and therefore often gets misconstrued. Here’s one of the fuller, better balanced discussions on the topic of what would have been meant by the term “well regulated Militia”:
Warning!!! this link will take you down a deeeeeeeap rabbit hole.
Russell Ward
Well regulated it would have to be otherwise there will be no concerted effort to a common goal.
Your example of Iraq and Afghanistan pretty much prove the point that irregular troops armed with small arms (and even some heavier anti-armor weapons) cannot effect “regime change” against a richer, better-armed force. The best they can achieve is a stalemate.
How would a similarly-armed group be able to overthrow a tyrant US President, should one decided to become a tyrant? With all the Military might at their disposal? Isn’t that the goal of the 2nd Amendment? Removal of a Tyrant, or the prevention of one ascending to power?
Without an effective navy, without air power, and without an armored force, small arms of the type protected by the 2nd Amendment are not enough to meet the lofty goal of returning power to the hands of the people.
edit:
I need to stay out of this.
One cannot assume that the military would be unflinchingly loyal to this hypothetical tyrannical regime and would level Carrollton with artillery, call in airstrikes on downtown Fort Worth, or steamroll Red Oak with a mechanized regiment. Civil wars are nasty things where unexpected fissures emerge and loyalties fall in unusual ways.
Also, a routine goal of irregulars is to acquire the heavier weapons of their regular opponents through favorable tactics of ambush, infiltration, etc. Fighting on one’s own home soil means that soft logistical/rear area underbelly is far more easily exploited than what we’ve seen overseas.
LOL, those id10ts keep calling it a “clip”. News stations don’t have “clips” they air SEGMENTS. They should probably stick to talking about things that they know about. 
Seeing how I’ve contributed to the problem, I’ll step back as well.
I have found the conversation, and all y’all’s contributions, interesting and enlightening.
Mister Smith brings up a valid point. I was in China in 1989 when Tienanmen happened - different city.
Something most people are not aware of, most of the tanks and soldiers that attacked the protesters were military troops brought up from Shanghai. They were afraid the troops stationed in Beijing, which most were from that area (soldier’s don’t move around as much as US soldiers do) would be hesitant to fire on friends and family or other other soldiers they were with. By bringing in outsiders this avoided that problem.
I can’t speak to the current military, but I seriously and strongly doubt it has changed, but the military would not turn and support a repressive regime. Just as in the American Civil War, people left the Union Army to support their State, I think many many Troops would support the population. Before they left they could sabotage a lot of equipment. High tech equipment is easy to do that to.
A million snipers would be hell to deal with. Also, there are a lot of vets out there - they aren’t all untrained civilians. A “very well organized” militia is foreseeable.
I read somewhere recently that there are ~1.3 million people in the US active military and an additional 800,000 in reserves. There are over 325 million people in the US, and between 10% and 50% of US households own guns (estimates vary wildly, depending on what agenda is being pushed). Even at the 10% number there are more than 15 times (325M x 10% = 32.5M / 2.1M = 15.47) the number of gun owners (32.5M) than there are military personnel (2.1M).
Even with zero disertions, the US military would have a very, very difficult time holding down the US citizenry, if push came to shove.
Edit to add: Only about 35% of the US military serve in “combat” positions. the other 65% are in support or command positions. That leaves about 735,000 “shooters”.
I’m sure that certain other nations that would jump at the chance to supply advanced weaponry to an armed insurgency destabilizing the USA as well. Much like French aid in the Revolution, that could shift the balance of power substantially.
