No they don't, at least not in the hands of white people and rightwing fringe groups. We can see this by contrasting the treatment of the Malheur occupiers versus the non-armed Standing Rock occupiers.

The Malheur occupiers carried out an armed takeover of a Federal building in the middle of nowhere. No economic threat, no political threat, so they were basically surrounded and left alone. The Standing Rock occupiers are not armed and are standing in the way of money, so they get the water cannon and worse treatment.

If there was a time for terrorism to be used as a pretext, it was much closer to 9/11. Similarly for mass shootings. Most of the public accept them as routine and children are drilled about the possibility at school. That isn't enough to make even minor gun restrictions happen. Obviously nothing is going to happen under a Republican government, especially a Trump presidency. "Soon enough" isn't this decade.

(The only thing which could provoke serious disarmament efforts would be an armed Black Lives Matter movement..)

Other way round: guns are the distraction. You can't use them in any kind of regular politics. None of America's great moments of protest or social progress have been enabled by protestors with guns. Even mortally important ones like the civil rights movement. For obvious reasons: once you start shooting there's no easy way to stop until one side is dead.

You'll be allowed to keep them and feel good about it as a consolation prize. But when you're unemployed and lack health insurance, what good will that do you? Republicans will use gun ownership as the wedge issue while they loot the government.