I concur with that for the most part. We've always been a gun culture and I assume we always will be one. It's cost us four Presidents, and nearly several more, but an unarmed citizenry is at the mercy of the government.
I'm not sure that the citizens of this country would be any match against our military, even armed with machine guns. But that scenario will never occur. The power of public sentiment forces the government to adopt new policies, even if it's a slower pace than we'd sometimes like. I have my guns for hunting, self-defense, and in the case of my mini-14, just for fun. I like the banana clip and making a lot of noise.
I don't own it in anticipation of needing to overthrow the government by shooting a lot of people.
No one does... that's my point... it's not necessary. The fact of the matter is, "consent of the governed" means a whole lot more when the "governed" are armed and still have a choice in the matter. That's the point.... the choice. No one thinks a bunch of civilians with Deer rifles is standing up to the US Army, and they don't have to BECAUSE they can.
Think of it this way... you and I are decided who is going to make the rules of a game. You want the rules to be tyrannically stacked in your favor, and I want them more even. I take a loaded gun and put it to your head. If you believe that I would use it, you will change your mind about whatever tyranny you were planning and be more reasonable. I don't have to actually commit an act of violence, I only have to have the capacity for it, and all of a sudden you become awfully reasonable.
That's what it was about. It turns a Hitler, (mad with power, looking upon citizens as subjects) into someone like Hillary Clinton. Still mad with power, and thinking of the people like subjects, but without the absolute authority to do anything about it.
The propensity for violence makes it's practice irrelevant.