Genuinely interested in the "protect me from the government"argument. Given that Americ.markets its brand of democracy around the world by gunpoint, its interesting that its people are apparently so unconvinced that the system will protect them.
In what was then Great Britain, we also had a civil war against a tyrant. In our case it was King - executive branch if you like - vs parliament. Parliament won, elected its own tyrant, and we brought back the monarchy albeit with much restricted power. In the present day UK we have political debates about the reach of state security - the number of police officers and CCTV cameras, the ability of the police to stop and search "suspects" or detain without trial, and the need for compulsary ID cards. No matter how passionate the debates get, I haven't heard anyone - even the tin foil hat brigade - claim we need ti physically restrain the government. I suppose we think we can vote them out if they go to far (as has just happened).
So what's the difference in America? You have had hbiversak sufferage longer than we have in the UK and a constitution. Why are they not seen as enough? Genuinely curious, as I said in other replies your national desire to bear arms is your business not mine, I'm curious about the politico-social drivers behind things like fear of the government.