[moretrashplz]

An armed citizenry has acted as a deterrent to tyrannical governments and nation states for as long as the two have co-existed. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

And no, "we" don't get to consider who has lawful or rightful access to firearms - unless you got to vote for the last class of police cadets at your local precinct.

[giraffe_lady]

That something has often been true in the past doesn't mean it always will be. These are trends not natural laws.

There is a clear development for at least 20 years in the US of more policing, more police surveillance, more sense of a right or prerogative of police to make their own decisions about violence without oversight or consequence.

These changes are for the most part supported by the people who self-identify as enthusiastic gun owners, or people who value their right to own and carry guns. I don't want to try to guess what constraints you may have on the definition of tyrannical here, but this confluence of forces is a negative for the material expression of rights.

What you can do on paper isn't very important when someone can shoot you for doing it and get away with that. That someone may be a cop in some cirumstances and they may be a lawful gun owner in others. This makes them natural allies in many political contexts because of that simple fact.