The truth may be ugly, but it does no one any good to pretend it doesn't exist.
At best (e.g. the land-use fee scammer Cliven Bundy situation in Nevada) you can delay enforcement of your obligations, but that doesn't make you "free," it just means you're reneging on your part of the citizenship bargain wherever you live.
Why that's considered a good thing, I have no idea. I certainly don't want to live in a might-makes-right world. I'd rather live in one consisting of a democratically-enacted rule of law.
Same people, different generation, different government.
Is it perfect? No, but nothing human is. Is it accessible? Oh yes. Is it something I, and everyone else, can work to be a part of and make better for all citizens? Of course. Do guns play any role at all in that work? Not a one. This--the discussion of the role of government in a democratic society--is a place for words and ideas, not weapons.
We are past the might-makes-right attitude of "I have guns so I'm OK". Now we talk.
While attempting to do that you might realize that you in fact do live in a world where might-makes-right and that the "democratically-enacted rule of law" paradise they sold you through your TV is just that.
You might also realize that you are wrong in thinking that the US government is made up largely of people like you, neither wealthy nor well-connected. This is the epitome of naivete, to think US politicians aren't wealthy and their careers aren't a game of who-knows-who.
You said that the democratically-enacted rule of law "paraside" is something that TV sold me.
I don't own a TV set, and I spend the occasional evening and weekend being part of that democratic process. I engage with the other folkspeople in my community, and with our elected officials, some of whom I'm already on a first-name basis with. We talk about stuff, upcoming new regulations, the state of the city and neighborhoods.
I get that you feel pretty disempowered, but I can't really think that that's anything but your choice. I also get the sense that guns give you back that sense of being empowered, like "even if no one listens to me, at least I have a gun." That's not any meaningful sense of power, though, you're not going to persuade people to come around to your point of view with a gun. A gun in your pocket just doesn't give you any democratic legitimacy.
Which, it's funny, buying your way into a false sense of power, while relinquishing your own actual legitimate political power, that's the sad thing.
Oh, but I'm naive. Yeah, getting out there and engaging politically is hard. I'll just go buy my way into a meaningless sense of power, and stay at home instead. King of my castle, while democratic society passes me by.
This justification is how the U.S argued for its independence - the "Right of Revolution" [0]. Which has since been codified as illegal in US law [1] yet remains protected under many state constitutions [2]. I'm not sure how the conflict is resolved.
On a larger scale - look at your countries' history - look at your current influence on the world - look at how many military bases you have around various points in the world. Your country has the largest military spending in the world by a large amount [3].
The U.S of A is the living, breathing definition of "might makes right". It won its independence by might-makes-right. It became a global superpower by might-makes-right. It enacts treaties and forces embargoes because might-makes-right. It aids in overthrowing foreign governments to prop up agreeable leaders for their own benefit - and they can do this because might-makes-right.
Rest assured that "might makes right" is how things are done to this day. It's just that nobody tries to overpower the USA, so you don't notice it as often as the countries the USA plows through.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a...