Alx, you failed to grasp at least one of my points: an armed populace forces government to consider that it may have to deploy actual force, as opposed to blithely issuing dictatorial edicts. Some governments worry less about that than do others.
As another poster noted in another thread, the Clinton administration was not at all happy with the press it received from Waco or Ruby Ridge. Forcing those who govern to contemplate the likelihood of such incidents, and the resulting press, is a good way to deter them from blatant overreach in the first place.
So, guns providing some ability to resist tyranny is hardly a fallacy, whether in places where government has few qualms but the people are truly willing to fight (Libya, Syria, etc) or in places where government hates bad PR, and the willingness of the people to fight is rarely tested (here).
As far as the reality of changes coming, the louder administration mouthpieces have already become somewhat muffled, and New York's new law is already under challenge - not only by a pro RKBA attorney, but by state law enforcement associations.
Scaling back of administration plans, and effective counter attacks by pro RKBA forces, are not the result of believing those who insist on the inevitability (and implied necessary acceptance) of change; they are the result of the efforts of those of us who do not accept infringements, and who make our beliefs known via contacting legislators and heads of executive branches, writing letters to the editor, and donating funds to organized challenges.
I don't care what your politics are, Alx, but I find your message to be negative and counter-productive.