If the justification for gun ownership is "in case the Government comes for me", I'm saying that gun ownership will not protect you if/when that happens. So that specific justification is invalid.
Government versus 1 guy or small group - you're correct. Government versus 100+million armed citizens, many who have military training in explosives, plus the general population that could make firebombs, IEDs, and conduct active sabotage to essential infrastructure, its a different story. And you're presupposing that the government and its armed branches would act in a uniform manner instead of fracturing into patriots and rebels.
I see the purpose of [Democratic] government as to empower the little guy. The absence of government would be anarchy. Anarchy on its face is equal to absolute freedom. But in reality, anarchy just makes you subservient to whoever has greater "size, training, and numbers." Being governed democratically is choosing the most benign gang of warlords you can.
You're very correct - both sides (Government and Warlords) rely on a monopoly or imbalance of power to impose their will via force. This is why monopolies on force should never be tolerated. This is a central tenet held by most responsible gun owners.
We are giving up tremendous autonomy to a mob of voters, their elected representatives, and the military and police force that those representatives employ. Anarchy vs. government are two sides of the same coin, or maybe different ends of a spectrum. In both cases, individuals are below an authority. The authority is the better-armed, higher numbered gang than the one you're in.
It is better to have a small chance to escape/evade/deter than zero chance against a corrupt and violent mob/government. I don't see the logic in "you'll get your teeth kicked so why even try" philosophy. The USA wouldn't exist if the 13 colonies had adopted this "why even try" pathos.
That being said, the primary purpose of any government is to sustain a military and a police force. The military protects us from outsiders while the police force protects us from each other. And the whole rest of the government apparatus is to determine how those two forces should act.
A monopoly on force is the logical outcome of this understanding.
Perhaps there are some governments, i.e., North Korea, that prioritize military and police power over other considerations but this was never the intent of the Founders of the USA. I believe the purpose of government, at least at the inception of the US Republic, was defined in the Constitution's preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Because a military, police force, and government is just a bunch of individuals. And individuals are prone to self-serving abuse of power as well as tend to form gangs. So you inevitably end up with corrupt individuals having the monopoly on force. This would justify an armed revolution.
For an armed revolution to be successful, you would need the armed populace to be at least evenly matched in firepower to the government, AND for them all to agree that the time for the revolution has come.
If you have varying sized groups of armed individuals fighting over how to govern each other, you are back to anarchy again.
The threats that arise from corruption and monopolies of force is the reason the US Constitution contains a framework for the separation of powers to prevent the abuse that occurs when a small minority runs everything. The definition of anarchy is " a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
" The US Government and its citizens promote anarchy every time they allow anyone, including government, to disregard the authority granted via the US Constitution.
The right to bear arms is declared within the Constitution via the 2nd amendment. So we can't confiscate guns without repealing the 2nd amendment otherwise we are promoting anarchy by disregarding the very document that is the roadmap and foundation of the American Republic. Repeal the 2nd amendment and I would respect gun confiscation even if I don't agree with the decision; its my duty as a citizen to uphold the US Constitution.
And having an armed citizenry as a check to government power was the intent of some within the Constitutional Assembly; their letters and diaries state so specifically.
Having typed the above, you all might think I'm a gun nut. I don't own a gun even though I could obtain one easily via the legal rights within my state. I was in a competitive rifle club so I do know about gun safety and I have gone shooting with some of my police buddies on occasion. I have never felt the need to own a gun but should the need ever arise, I would like the option of protecting myself via a firearm as a measure of last resort.