The right to bear arms alone isn't sufficient to maintain the right of private property, since it means that anyone who's weaker than the locally strongest group of armed men de facto doesn't have any rights at all.

I can't possibly imagine how the right to bear arms could prevent Foxconn from taking their land, as Foxconn could definitely afford to violently remove anyone resisting, no matter how much arms they could realistically have; and it would be the cost-efficient (and thus preferrable) way to solve this issue - e.g. as an alternative of offering $50000/acre for 420 acres, you can hire a lot of mercenaries with heavy hardware for half that amount and simply take the land for free.