The argument you're describing is missing the point. Historically, most government abuse occurs at the local level and this is where a personal right to bear arms becomes relevant. Decades ago, a gun could prevent a lynching by a racist sheriff. Today, perhaps it prevents a rape during a rural traffic stop.
Government is a diverse collection of entities. It's a mistake to assume that resisting the government means overthrowing the entire federal system.
If you're interested in hearing more on this subject I recommend reading "This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible" by Charles Cobb.
"Guns rights" for minorities in America has rarely ever been about personal protection or what not, it has been about keeping those in power in power and keeping the.
Large swaths of American history of American history are likely being ignored with assertion like "gun ownership could prevent a lynching". Take pre-Civil War laws making gun ownership of African Americas (free and enslaved) illegal, the continuation of those laws under "Black Codes" in both the North and South post Civil War, and the extension of similar acts post Civil Rights Act with laws like California's 1967 Mulford Act.
I agree those are examples of maintaining (often racist) power systems. But what you're providing aren't examples of gun rights, they're examples of gun control initiatives -- which are the opposite of gun rights.
This extends beyond such obvious examples as the Mulford Act (California's foray into gun control, banning open carry in response to armed protest by Black Panthers). Gun control often focuses on removing access to arms by any poor and disenfranchised groups. So called "Saturday night special" legislation seeks to ban cheap guns, with disproportionate impact in disadvantaged communities.
Access to arms has historically been a key element of people maintaining their freedom from government abuse. Your examples of gun control indeed do undermine this freedom.
The history of gun control in the US is deeply tainted by racist motivations.
Yes, and the foundation for much of it the NFA, could be kicked over tomorrow. Its precedent is really weak (miller) or as you point out racist/financially disadvantaged.
But even without the Second Amendment, the criminal could still get a gun. The difference is, with the Second Amendment, the civil-rights activist can also get a gun.
Not much of the current personal arms policy debate in the US is about whether we should strive to make it impossible for criminals or civil rights activists to get a gun. It's about the margins of ease, how that can or should vary by person, how capacity or type of weapon matters, legal exposure of different kind of carrying, and other matters that could reasonably fall under "well-regulated."
For example, some people think a recent domestic abuse record should trigger a very high level of scrutiny for firearm purchases (or even continued possession). This isn't the sort of rule that would prevent anyone from committing a crime with a gun, perhaps not even an impenetrable wall for those with such records. But it increases the practical difficulty and compounds the crime (and risk) for certain cases.
Margins matter -- seatbelts can't save all lives but they absolutely produce a safety margin.
Some other countries allow private ownership of firearms without a Constitutional amendment, so latter case is theoretically possible with or without the 2A.
America has a lot of gun availability and yet getting shot isn't the most common cause of on-the-job death for a police officer. In fact, law enforcement isn't a particularly dangerous line of work.
I think a better question would be asking how arming either police or civilians changes the policing dynamic. These types of questions also need to be set against the larger cultural context of how a society keeps control of its policing activity.
Government is a diverse collection of entities. It's a mistake to assume that resisting the government means overthrowing the entire federal system.
If you're interested in hearing more on this subject I recommend reading "This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible" by Charles Cobb.