The citizenry being armed is an incredible advantage when it comes to stopping a tyrannical government because, as is the case of the USA, it protects freedom of speech (no one's changing the 1st amendment while there's a 2nd), which is the main block to tyranny. If that fails you have guerrilla warfare to fall back on, which is incredibly effective.
> Arreguín-Toft was analyzing conflicts in which one side was at least ten times as powerful—in terms of armed might and population—as its opponent, and even in those lopsided contests the underdog won almost a third of the time.
It's also a logical implication of standard liberal (e.g. Locke) thought. Since all men are equal before the law and are innocent until proven guilty, and have the right to protect themselves and their property, why should anyone be denied a weapon when others can be?
> Arreguín-Toft was analyzing conflicts in which one side was at least ten times as powerful—in terms of armed might and population—as its opponent, and even in those lopsided contests the underdog won almost a third of the time.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/11/how-david-beat...
It's also a logical implication of standard liberal (e.g. Locke) thought. Since all men are equal before the law and are innocent until proven guilty, and have the right to protect themselves and their property, why should anyone be denied a weapon when others can be?