This whole "protection from government" thing is perplexing to me.
I understand the historical roots, especially in the US, and have some similar concerns in the long term myself.
However, the idea that an armed citizenry is going to make any difference is absurd. If you want to be protected from an oppressive, powerful government you have to, for one thing, reduce the power of that government.
Exactly what good will all sorts of citizen weaponry be against F16s and M1 battle tanks? Those are just the start of what is available to the government. Included in the states power is an indoctrinated,
patriotic force that accepts "my country, right or wrong".
If you want to be protected against this force then no reasonably imaginable amount of citizen weaponry will do the job. You must instead work to reduce the power of the force of the state. Or at least do a lot of both.
It is, to me, an absurd argument and obviously not one really believed by most of those putting it forward.
(a small bet: a large majority of those against gun control are in favor of a strong army).