>I'll take all three for 500, Alex.
Wow... you really get triggered if someone questions your cherished principles, don't you? I'm either ignorant, stupid or trolling? No, I'm just examining the assumptions behind your argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or incapable of.
Your thesis is that it's impossible for the American people to resist a despotic government without guns, and that it would be impossible to procure those guns without a Second Amendment. Yet, you've given at least one (of many) examples of a regime which has successfully led an armed revolution (against the US, no less) without having a Second Amendment.
Now, the question of whether the Second Amendment is necessary to resist the American government has already been answered by you - it isn't, because it historically hasn't been. In fact, historically speaking, of all groups resistant to American tyranny the American people have proven the least effective of any.
There's also a false equivalence in assuming that all American gun owners are members of a militia in readiness for action against tyranny. Most American gun owners are collectors, hunters, or merely concerned with protecting their family against intruders. That every American gun owner would be ready, willing and able to rise up against their government is a fantasy. Half would side with the tyrants, depending on the nature of the tyranny. Many wouldn't fight, most would probably just try to defend their homes.
As for "suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment?" that's absurd on its face given that we can't "all have as many AKs as we want forever" to begin with.
The more reasonable form of your question would be "are you suggesting that it is possible to own guns without the Second Amendment?" And given that gun ownership exists in other countries, and that a black market for guns also exists in countries where it doesn't, the answer to this question is also, obviously, yes.