Perhaps, if we were to make the mistake of gathering in one convenient spot for the bombers to hit. But there’s no reason we would have to do that.
If we ever reach the terrible state where American bombers are creaming American cities, I don’t think we’ll be worrying about whether it’s “legal” to have heavy weapons, anyway. We’ll be way past debating the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Gurilla warfare, the type fought by a civilian population is almost impossible to defeat by a normal military. Special forces specially trained have limited success. The ‘rebels’ have the choice of time place and method of assault. Great Britain was the most powerful armed force in the world at the time of our revolution. They were beaten soundly. We lost our collective asses in Vietnam to a gurilla type war machine. Look at Afghanistan. Its like a video game. We knock them down in one place and they pop up in another. That is why no nation in modern times has been successful there. Air power, tanks, drones and ‘smart weapons’ all can make a mess of things but cannot in anyway be decisive in that sort of conflict. Nuke ‘em? Maybe. But who is going to give the order to do that, especially if the fighting is taking place in NYC or LA or Atlanta or Dallas or DC? More to the point. Who is going to carry it out? IMHO with the exception of a few social climbing generals the rest of our military would side with their families and the civilians. War is hell and Civil War is probably the worst kind of hell. It may be what the Marxists want.
Point is, we are not going to scare government with a few pop guns. They will not be intimidated. They have the firepower and have ruled MIL apparatus illegal for mere civilians to own - not what Founders intended. The Founders intended the government fear its people.
“If we ever reach the terrible state where American bombers are creaming American cities...”
The Messiah wouldn’t bomb big cities, that’s where his supporters are located. He’d go for strafing runs against towns, maybe neighborhoods based on voting patterns.
In reality, if it got to the point of sending in bombers or close-support air strikes, we would already have obtained effective counter weaponry, either by armory or field capture; or by the defection of units loyal to the people/Constitution.
Also, if bombers were used, the U.S. government would not be any more immune from foreign/UN intervention than Saddam, Gaddafi, or Assad. They would be hoisted upon their own Globalist petard...and weapons & supplies would start arriving across both the northern & southern borders.
For the vast majority of Americans, shotguns, handguns and rifles will be sufficient to ward off an attack by enemies, foreign and domestic (although I agree with the article that the second amendment, read logically, does not place restrictions on the kinds of weapons we may keep).
Ironically, those who most oppose the Second Amendment live in the liberal enclaves of big cities. Those cities are most in need of the heavy weaponry the writer is talking about, but they are the ones least likely to have it.