The dream and goal of every tyrant and despot ever is to reduce the martial capacity of their "subjects".
Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united; but a tyrant/despot, with enough economic power (or oppression of others) can make sure a population is ideologically or otherwise fractured/disunited and cause infighting.
This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood.
The two-bits army was ideologically and organizationally aligned with an already functioning colonial government. But that's survivor bias too. I don't know if there are any reliable rules for the long term outcome of a successful insurrection.
The British didn't need to be defeated, they only needed to realize that they could no longer govern the colonies.
And one major way of doing this is by reducing your combat power, and by securing control over the means of providing defense.
> Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only possible if the population is very united;
Historical counterexamples proliferate.
> This will actually make benefits of being well armed a liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk safely in your neighboorhood.
Fortunately possession and carriage of armaments mitigates both those ills.
Guns are legal in America and it's safe to walk in my neighborhood.