For the record, the reason the second ammendment is in the constitution is not so the people could kill deer really fast, It's so we have the ability to overthrow the government if the government becomes tyrannical or oppressive.

Yeah, I'm aware of the reason.

If the military has machine guns and the populace has nothing but barrel loaded black powder muskets, where do you think the odds lie?

About the same as they are now -- 0%.

However, If we BOTH have machine guns, and the problem is big enough for the people to mount a resistance to the military in significant numbers, things can be different.

That's just it -- if we BOTH have machine guns, and nothing BUT machine guns, things can be different. However, the general populace does NOT have: anti-personnel mines; anti-tank mines; cruise missiles; drone planes; fighter jets; smart bombs; nuclear weapons; tanks; howitzers; Patriot missiles; etc. Look how well the machine-gun totin' Taliban did against the US military. Do you honestly believe that an insurrection by the citizenry would fare any better? The only way that the US government can ever be overthrown through the use of force is if it's a military coup, in which case, they already have machine guns (and better).

If you are going to look at the historical record about why the second amendment exists, you also have to remember that at the time it was written, there wasn't such a disparity between the government/military and what the average shmuck could get his hands on (cannonnade not withstanding).

That leads me back to my previous argument, which is that the only other use I've heard for these weapons is hunting. Neither of the two uses stand up to any valid reasoning that I can find, and, as such, have no need to be in the hands of the general populace.