First, drones and much other modern weaponry are highly computerized to the point where they only take one person to really run them. So this is false. Or to put it more realistically, a surface to air missile capable of downing a 747 can be fired from the ground with a bazooka. I hope you're still not delusional enough to think those should available for purchase at Walmart.
Second, you're ignoring the larger point. If the purpose of these weapons is to defend yourself against a tyrannical government then your fight would be worthless without these more advanced weapons. If the United States military were ever being led by a tyrannical dictator they would be capable of blowing your ragged band of freedom fighters away from hundreds of miles away, and you would never see it coming.
The Second Amendment was written in a time where the United States did not have a standing army of its own, and technology would have made it virtually impossible to deploy a centralized army quickly at any amount of distance. In those days it was frequently necessary for local authorities to quickly deputize a posse of men or activate a local militia to defend local assets to stop any kind of uprising before it was able to gain traction. That is not remotely true anymore.
Every state has a national guard and state police. Federal agents or even military personnel could be deployed to any part of the country in less than 24 hours if needs are.
The need for this amendment doesn't exist anymore.
Really?
First:
1. A surface-to-air missile is not fired from a "bazooka." A bazooka was an old school anti-armor weapon, initially replaced in the U.S. arsenal by the single-shot LAW, the Dragon wire-guided missile system, and recently the Javelin fire-and-forget missile. Surface-to-air systems like the Stinger are used against aircraft.
2. Missiles are "ordinance." Ordinance in military terms includes weapons and supplies issued on an as-needed basis. They include explosives (grenades, bombs, etc.), supplies (rations, tools, etc.), missiles, etc.
The Second Amendment refers to those "arms" (weapons and supplies) an individual would be expected to maintain and report for duty with, as exemplified by the Militia regulations of the time. They do not include crew-served systems, area effect weapons, or single-use ordinance (aside from a basic load of ammunition). Yes, there were "exceptions" for businesses like our "merchant marine" ship owners whose Captains were expected to defend their property from pirates and privateers in international waters. There were also a few wealthy persons who owned cannons.
However, the expectation of the common citizen was a firearm, and a certain amount of ball and powder; cavalry personnel added saber and pistol.
Second:
The Second Amendment was written by people whose citizen-peers had been fighting a regular army for eight years, and expected future generations of citizen militia to be as well-armed as any other foreign or possibly tyrannous Federal government they might face.
The value of this ability has been demonstrated time and again against our own army in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, to name just two obvious examples. Technology can only go so far against an armed and dedicated guerilla force. Meanwhile, the best example was in our own Revolution, where armed citizens faced the mightiest professional army of the time and eventually won, regardless of naysayers who even today argue for all sorts of reasons that it was a fluke.
It is as appropriate today as it ever was back then, especially in light of the Progressive-Left push for more authoritarian forms of government in order to compel free citizens to adhere to their control. The fact that you argue so strongly against this right demonstrates your own concern for it's effective use, simply because any argument that states categorically "it would not be effective against a modern army" begs the question; i.e. "If this is true, why worry about citizens being armed who have no chance of success anyway?"
