Yours may be the first articulation of the ‘protect us from tyranny’ gun defence I’ve read which actually makes any kind of logical sense!

The argument previously struck me as very silly for two reasons:

• Govt troops have better arms and armour (i.e., citizens are not allowed bazookas, tanks and missiles);
• In normal life we do NOT want people shooting back at the police, for example.

I’m still not persuaded by the argument (because I think that by the time you get to defending yourself against government-backed thugs, things have already gone too far, the democratic checks and balances have failed, and the cost of widespread gun ownership is too high to justify keeping guns for that small eventuality) —but at least it’s a coherent point.