The rationale for using guns against the federal government is if, and I'll have to hit Godwin's Law on this, the government starts doing something like sending masses of people to the ovens, or acting like Stalin and murdering people suspected of not liking him on social media (just making it modern times relevant there), or going Pol Pot or Mugabe or any one of numerous examples throughout history in which the rulers turned on the people. It may be that the pro and anti second amendment people are divided by whether or not they think that could ever happen here.
But anyway, that's the situation in which you're going to use your guns to fight the feds, or whatever government jackboots are coming for you which could also be the national guard or the police or even some of the citizen militias because all of them could be co-opted by the forces of evil. You'd hope that there are enough like minded citizens, or would be victims, on your side including elements in the military and police and national guard and other militias that you'll be able to successfully defend yourself, but even if not at least you might have a chance to go down fighting instead of being a helpless lamb ripe for slaughter.
Bottom line, the 2nd Amendment is there for the worst case scenario.
Of course, that makes it tough to get rid of by persuasion because you have to convince people that's never going to happen. Not now, not in the next few generations and not in several hundred years. It's tough enough to prove a negative and it becomes pretty much impossible to prove that a potential future can never occur. So that's what your up against in getting rid of aka "reinterpreting" the second.
