It might be too complicated for a Mudcat thread. But here are some more thoughts:

(1)

My point was suppose the system of food delivery most urban folks rely on was seriously disrupted.

If this were to happen, where would these urban folks hunt their food? Would they eat squirrels from Central Park? Breast of Rock Dove? One piece of Rat Tart without so much rat in it? Facetious, obviously, but the point is what I said before: guns would not really help the situation, as there is just not enough meat on the hoof in most regions of the country without the distribution system you speak of. If you wanted to help your country continue to eat meat, the necessary step would be to become a vegetarian for a while and put your efforts into repairing the distribution system, rather than into hunting for own table. Going out and hunting is ultimately an "I'll keep eating meat and f*ck the rest of you" response.

(2)

I didn't mean to suggest that Jefferson was entirely irrelevant because he was a slaveowner. I simply meant to show that the world has changed so much since then that it is pointless to quote one of the "founding fathers" on an issue of practicality such as "maintain weapons to shoot your food with." People in those days had no choice, but now we do.   

Every time a gun-control law is passed, the anti-gun people say "that's one more step."

And what does the Gun Lobby say? "Taking away my automatic handgun is a slippery slope toward outlawing BB guns! You don't want your kids deprived of BB guns, do you?" In fact you make this absurd claim yourself, when you say

In my experience, and according to their stated views, the "gun-control" advocates make no distinction between types of firearms, and their ultimate goal is the elimination of any sort of privately owned firearm, including BB guns and flintlock muskets.

Even if this were true, and rarely is such a thing uniformly true of a large group, this doesn't mean that you also must make no distinction between types of firearms. Why not give up automatic handguns but draw the line at your hunting rifle?

(3)

Both of your examples are of invading armies facing forces who were being supplied with weapons by world superpowers. They were not countries where everyone had his own guns prior to the outbreak of war, and who fought the war with those guns. As such, they don't support your premise, which was that each person having his own guns could be a decisive factor in fighting tyrannical governments.

(4)

The second amendment is not about individual Americans being protected from the American government. The entire text of the amendment is:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, it's about maintaining the state's power, not defying it. Unless you are part of a "well-regulated militia" working for the security of the state, the amendment is irrelevant to your guns!

(5)

There's some merit to the argument that guns serve to protect "good guys" from "bad guys." But in my experience, "bad guys" are not after me but my property. Would I kill someone to protect my property? No. So unless someone specifically decided to kill me, and to do it in such a way that I could stop them with a gun, having a gun will not protect me. I agree that I am gambling that no one will specifically decide to kill me in such a way that I could protect myself with a gun, just as I gamble that they will not try to shoot me with an assault rifle through my windows and thus do not install bulletproof glass, or gamble that they will not throw nerve gas into my house and thus do not own HAZMAT suits. I've survived this long, but who knows?

As to your question: I'd prefer if only the army and police were armed, yes. In the long run, our democracy survived McCarthy and it will survive a lot more civil-liberty eroding bozos. But it may not survive the racist kooks out there who have arsenals of assault weapons and believe the government is a "Zionist-occupied" state polluted by blacks and jews. So I think the guns out there on the ground are more likely to increase tyranny than reduce it. I do not suggest, by the way, that anyone here falls into this category, but such groups do exist!