Your overall view of the division is decent, but I think it carries a fundamental flaw.
“Such people must maintain that any violent popular uprising against true oppression, at least in the advanced Western nations, is already hopelessly lost before it has even begun.”
How many uprisings in recent years have been won because of arms? How many more guns did the British have than Colonists in the U.S. Revolution? Coos, I will agree, are often won by fire power. But realistically, how often is that true of revolutions?
I, for one, do not discount or minimize the possibility of tyranny and oppression occurring from our government. I just see no rational argument that says guns have ever been, or ever would be, the solution to that issue. Twitter has been a bigger catalyst in revolutions against tyranny in the last 10 years than any firearm. Anonymous does more to ensure freedom from oppression than any militia can do.
I maintain that it’s “lost before it has even begun” if you are depending on your personal guns to be the solution to the problem. Especially when people are arguing that private use of a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round magazine is the solution, as if it does in any way rival the military’s own weaponry.
If we ever do need to act in violent opposition to our government, unarmed bodies on the streets will have more affect than an armed 2A-fetishist, railing that any gun regulation is unAmerican. And that attitude toward gun control, is in direct opposition to the views of most gun owners. So why is it that the extremes like the fetishist are the voices politicans seem to be listening to? But we know why, it’s all over NRATV.