Jack Durish's answer to What does the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution really mean, when...

Ah, my old friend, reductio ad absurdum. Actually, I think the fact that crew-served weapons, such as machine guns and artillery, require a crew would remove them from the the realm of individual rights, but would be acceptable in the hands of organized militia as well as national guard. This would also prevent a lone actor from going off on some insane mission. Nuclear weapons are controlled by International Treaty and those treaties signed by the President and consented to by Congress supersede the Constitution so long as they do not interfere with individual rights of the citizen.

Strategy and tactics must be considered every bit as much as weaponry. Warfare has become less and less massive armies going toe-to-toe and more lightly armed guerrilla bands frustrating powerful military machines.
We need only look at the French and American experiences in Vietnam, or the recent Russian failure in Afghanistan to realize the ability of a lightly armed force to defeat a powerful military force with the very latest in military weaponry.
Perhaps most telling was the success of Michael Collins, the "urban guerrilla", whose "12 Apostles" were the lightly armed crew that helped establish the Irish Free State. That was accomplished in spite of the military might of the British Empire, with all its troops, artillery, tanks, and air power. Collins succeeded where 700 years of rebellion by "conventional warfare" had failed.
In short, heavy weaponry is not necessary to end a tyrannical government or resist a foreign occupation.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Well then, radio and television do not deserve the same protections as the printing press and quill pen and ink. Fountain pens and ball point pens are also subject to be controlled.
BTW, fuck your snark