P1: Jan 6 almost overthrew the government
P2: Very few Jan 6 Protestors had guns during the protest that they did since they thought the election was rigged.
P3: The Jan 6 Protestors believed the government was tyrannical and they almost succeeded in overthrowing them with very few (less than .05% of the US population (Exclusive: Classified Documents Reveal the Number of January 6 Protestors (newsweek.com))) present, with only 12 members having guns according to Newsweek (Fact Check: Were There Armed Protesters at the Capitol on January 6? (newsweek.com)).
P4: Very few guns were had by the protestors when almost overthrowing the government.
C1: You don't need a huge number of guns to overthrow the government if they go tyrannical if 12 guns distributed among 120,000 people almost gets the job done. So I would argue this makes the 2nd amendment's argument that guns are pretty much not needed to defend against a tyranical government not accurate; because our government that the Jan 6 people thought was tyranical almost got overthrown with 12 guns and if they had 0 guns, but 10 million protestors, then they could almost certainly have overthrown the government if they do something that pisses off 10 million people enough to conduct a revolution (so the 3% figure that people claim was enough to start the US revolutionary war in the first place).
So my sole reason for wanting AR 15s to be legal is freedom. Just like I support the freedom to own an autograph; it doesn't make either useful. I would not spend $800 or so on an AR 15; I'm fiscally conservative and I would rather invest the money and conserve my finances.