Guns, Tyranny, and Inconsistent Rhetoric

Here’s my problem with many people arguing in favor of gun rights: You claim an armed populace is essential for protecting the people against a tyrannical government but you seem to do absolutely nothing to prevent that tyranny from taking control in the first place. Warrantless surveillance, inhumane prison conditions, mass deportation of immigrants, bans on certain religions – these are all characteristics consistent with tyrants and dictators, and yet all of that seems to be totally tolerable as long as it doesn’t threaten your guns or raise your taxes. You argue these things make us safer but then turn around and drop your “Those who sacrifice liberties for security” meme every time the gun argument is brought up.
If you felt as passionate about the steady erosion of our 4th amendment rights as you do over potentially curbing the 2nd amendment, we might all be a little further from tyranny and a little less concerned about arming ourselves for the insurrection. But you and people who look like you don’t see a huge stake in things like stop-and-frisk so I won’t hold my breath.
Instead, you’ll cherry pick which portions of the constitution are worth protecting based on which ones affect you directly. If you’re truly trying to protect yourselves against tyranny, you should be far more concerned with government intervention in the tech sector, a militarized police force, and privatized prisons, yet those things are all consistently championed by the same conservative thinkers that have you fired up about your right to bear arms.
It kind of seems like you ignore all that because focusing on those things wouldn’t let you play out your cowboy rebel fantasies of joining the resistance. You’d be stuck living a life in which you work to prevent violence rather than preparing to take part in it, and that doesn’t appeal to the post-apocalyptic fetish you’ve grown so fond of.