I used to think similarly as well. But realistically speaking, the military weapons and civilian weapons are just too far apart nowadays. The military would absolutely smoke us compared to the intent when it was written into the bill of rights.
Estimates for counterinsurgency are that an occupier needs ~20 soldiers for 1000 occupied civilians. The US army has 1.3M troops - the entire might of the US military would be needed to pacify just CA alone, and that would leave the rest of the country virtually defenseless. It's easy to bomb a building from a jet; it's much harder to kick in doors and arrest dissidents _even if_ there is no armed resistance.
The hard truth that allows democracy to survive is that it is not possible to govern without the consent of the governed. It is certainly not possible to occupy a rich, productive region and have it remain rich and productive unless the occupier has overwhelming force.
Winning a war is so much more than expensive, shiny weapons.
Is that accurate or just Ukrainian propaganda like the Ghost of Kiev?