to your first point...
I do not agree that the citizenry is effectively disarmed compared to the state.
We have the evidence of guerilla warfare, and I reject the premise that the entirety of the states forces would side with the state.
We probably disagree here, and it's probably the initial split in the road that grows further apart for each of us.
2nd question...
Tyranny could happen with an armed citizenry of course. The will to fight back is never a given, and the deviousness in which the tyranny operates shouldn't be underestimated... AKA the frog in the ever warming pot of water.
I would say our current path of identity politics is a good example, the further the powers that be can divide us into smaller and smaller identity groups armed or not, the less likely we are to realize the cages we are willingly walking into.
I guess I fibbed... I have a few more minutes due to the age old.. I'll be ready in 5m
I think where you miss me is that it's not that I don't think it can happen here... it's that I DO think it can happen here.
I have the exact same thoughts about those that don't support the 2A. They feel it can't happen here, so we don't need to protect against our own Gov't. They want to willingly hand more and more control to the Gov't.
I do not like the Rhetoric from the far right there either. And while I support the 2A, I'm not too blind to see that it could be hijacked for malicious intent as well.
None of our rights are free, they need attention, and we need to be vigilant to how they are enacted.