To return to my basic thesis and spur conversation - I would remind folks that the country had until recently periods when the basic rights of significant groups were tremendously impeded. There was little push from what would be seen as gun rights favorable populations to remove those restrictions, for the most part. The NRA did aid in arming Blacks. But gun laws aimed at African Americans were promoted to specially restricted their rights and protect the control of their rights. The gun bearing populations of those areas (being Caucasian) were ok with that. They had their guns.
To assume that the gun owning populations will necessarily support other civil liberties is not always true. That seems to be a major point of the thesis. Banning flag burning, mandated religious observance in schools, media control, illegal searches, past bans on contraception or sexual activity between consenting adults, what recreational substances can be used, interrment in camps - all kinds of violations of personal liberty and action are or were OK with a significant part of the gun owning populace.
So I'm doubtful of the general thesis of the 2nd protecting all others. Gun owners did not rise in rebellion for equal voting rights or to end segregation.
Also, rebellion to resist a war you disagree with? Isn't that what Bill Ayers became a poster boy of Fox News for doing? Do you think his actions were legit in opposition to the Viet Nam war or was he really a GOP described domestic terrorists or a patriot? The war was ended by the right of assembly and the electoral process, IIRC.
We are nowhere near the extremes needed for rebellion. The discussion that a new gun law is the trigger is standard fare for gun lists but IMHO very simplistic - no offense.