The argument their guns can protect them from the government is so ridiculous I question the validity of the source (it has to be a joke). I mean, unless the people starts to own tanks, war ships, fighter jets and nukes, I don't see how they can even be relevant at all.
An article from 2013:
This is one of those areas where originalism would lead us astray. The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about states' rights. It's highly plausible that they intended the 2nd Amendment to do exactly what it says - allow for state militias - with the underlying assumption that these militias would stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny. But how relevant is that today? In our world today, the federal government has control of an army so formidable that it would slaughter any number of "minute men" armed with semi-automatic rifles.
It always makes me think of Waco. Or more recently in my state, the Malheur State Park occupation. Militias with AR-15s are powerless against the federal government. I think the better weapon to use against the feds in this day and age to hold them accountable is simply media exposure. Make sure your story gets out. Which doesn't always mean you're on the right side.