Originally Posted by W*GS
You're correct. It's a theoretical.
The reality is that we're already paying the cost for this theoretical.
Besides, the RKBA hasn't ever stopped the government from doing the wrong thing, going way back to the Whiskey Rebellion.
There's a massive Seen vs Unseen fallacy here. It's pretty difficult (impossible) to prove why something that didn't happen didn't happen.
But let's just say that there's a reason that gun bans (including 1994's, and even earlier prohibitions on fully-automatic weapons) only address manufacture and sales instead of confiscation. Your government wants no part of going house to house. Which is good for both sides. Because that apprehension is a last level of protection.
This really comes down to a certain segment of people having far more faith in their government than the Constitution and its authors ever thought prudent. In a lot of ways it's success has bred the complacency that might someday work to undo it.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-Patrick Henry, having about as much faith in Congress as was warranted.