Despite his formidable writing, political analysis, and intellectual talents, Wigderson misses the point of the Second Amendment by a mile. Obviously, Wig's in need of some target practice.
Jim contends that 'we have nothing to fear from a tyranny here in the USA,' and thus, the Second Amendment was REALLY written to assure the US of a prepared civilian-military force. This contention is partially accurate, of course. Should the US be invaded by some foreign army, weaponry already in the homes (or hands) of the citizens will be necessary and quite useful.
But Jim seems to ignore the history. The "shot heard 'round the world" was fired specifically to prevent the Redcoats (that would be the Government's troops at the time) from seizing the guns the Colonials had stored.
The King of England (through his appointed local governor) WAS the Government of the Colonies at the time. He was also judged to be a tyrant by the Colonials.
By no co-incidence, the Founders specifically included the Second Amendment into the Constitution following the Revolution against a tyrant. They were well-aware that tyrants arise, and sometimes are VERY popular fellows (see above quotation's author.)
Self-defense and the defense of others is good, and an inalienable right. It was the contention of the Founders that a corollary right was the ability to overthrow a Government (ANY Government) which was adjudged to be a tyranny.
Frankly, it's not likely that Washington will become so oppressive that a critical mass of the citizens will decide that a revolution is necessary. But that does not obviate the reality of the Second Amendment's genesis.