If self governance was easy, someone would have figured it out by now.
Basically giving the government the absolute minimum amount of power to be functional. With crazy restrictions on making changes so that it’s hard for the government to grab more power.
An armed population helps keep the government from going too crazy like what China is doing to people over Covid.
Hard to weld doors shut on peoples homes if they have shotguns.
Even better, the original (at least, publicly known) intent of the gun ban was to limit ownership of handguns.
Bill C-11 is promoted under the guise of "promoting Canadian content" but of course it's going to be mis-used and abused to control information and the narrative on both domestic and foreign events - if they have the power then they're going to use it for what they want to. A Liberal MP actually stated that they could use the bill to limit 'misinformation' on platforms, though my memory is blank on exactly who it was.
I'm eagerly awaiting for the western first-world political climate to do a complete 180 so all the citizens who supported these emotionally-backed "feel good" laws while voting for the candidates who support them can have "I told you so" thrown into their faces at Mach infinity when the laws they thought were a good idea get used against them by people they don't like.
The western-world is getting increasingly authoritarian now that people are realizing that their country isn't what was sold to them anymore - the never-ending cycle continues.
A bee does not expect to kill a dog(or whatever) with its stinger. It is a deterrent.
Now, I'm not saying that it is necessarily worth it for the population to be armed in this way. I don't know whether it is worth it. Maybe not? But the question is more complicated than "well obviously the government is going to be more armed, and therefore there is no point." .
I'd say Vietnam, Afghanistan prove those points wrong.
The ATF did a decent job of policing this but now the threat is shifting to insider threats and insurrection (something we're terrible at policing). When you can't beat the adversary in conventional warfare, you turn to psyops to use the adversary's own weapons against them.
If the military gets called to your ranch, there's no guaranteeing whose side they'll fight on. You may start with plastic AR-15s...until sympathizers toss you the keys to the Abrams.
This point is always brought up but is never argued to its natural conclusion.
On the surface it seems you are implying that citizens should have powerful guns so they can threaten and potentially kill police officers trying to do something despotic. However if someone did that, the police would just crack down 10x as hard on that individual with more powerful, government purchased guns and arrest them for life. No matter what guns people are allowed to have, it's not a deterrent against despotism on an individual level.
The argument that the point of the 2nd amendment is for the citizenry to defend against government power is ridiculous. Why would a blueprint for a government install protections to make sure it can be violently overthrown, when the rest of the constitution is entirely focused on ensuring the consent of the people is funneled up to government power in a non-violent matter? To argue that that's the point of the 2nd amendment implies the founders didn't believe that the Constitution would be effective in forming a representative democracy.
You're confused that the constitution has more than one kind of safeguard against tyranny?
"The idea that airbags are to prevent injuries is ridiculous. Why would a car have protections stop someone hitting the steering wheel, when there are also seatbelts entirely focused on ensuring that the driver doesn't hit the steering wheel?"
Also note that the guarantee of anti-tyranny violence makes it much less likely that someone's gonna try to do a tyranny in the first place. Compared to a disarmed and helpless population just waiting to be tyrannized.
A mugger is bound by law not to mug you. But he might do it anyway, regardless of what the paper says. However, if he knows you're armed, he's less likely to try. And if he does try, he's less likely to succeed.
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
It's not to defend against the local police force that smashes your door down - it's not to defend against the military that wants to predator drone your hidden compound of Q-cultists in rural Montana because they've been popping shots at National Guard convoys.
It's to give anybody a chance (albeit an infinitesimally small one, with gigantic risks their own life) to immediately and permanently remove a government representative from office.
I personally don't agree with the premise or concept, but that's probably the most likely intention.
Enabling assassinations is not in any way a part of the intent of the second amendment.