Regarding the OP though, and the idea that the public need these overpowered guns primarily to defend themselves against a tyrannical government...

Firstly... the principle may have made sense in the 1700s, but it seems totally out of touch with modern reality. You really think, if it came to it, you would be able to bring down the technical might of the US army? You're going to use rifles on their tanks and jets?

Is it legal for individuals to own tanks or jets, by the way? If you support the above argument for assault rifles, that means these things should be legal too, right?

Secondly... what's the difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government and overthrowing a democratic government? There is always going to be a difference of opinion. For example, the current US government is elected by popular vote. But clearly there are some people like Jones who think it's a tyranny. Why should they have have a legal right to try to take it over by aggression?