I'm sorry you feel that way... I respectfully disagree.
I think you would be hard pressed to find any politician in this country that gives a second thought to the citizenry taking up arms because of a decision they make. The few wackos that have taken up arms against the government since the Civil War haven't done all that well either. As a matter of fact, when was the last time an armed insurrection worked in the US? I will give you a hint, a guy named Washington was in charge.
One argument that I have heard repeatedly, and what I think you are alluding too, for keeping arms is again the ideal that we have an armed citizenry ready to answer the call of arms whenever necessary. But I think that is a flawed argument. It is based partly on the whole idea that we won our independence because a few citizens grabbed their guns and fought the British. If that is what you think, you are sorely mistaken. We won mainly because the professional Continental Army and in the end, French assistance. Militamen were generally unreliable on the battlefield and only served to harass the British in most cases.
One of the few battles where militiamen were a decisive factor in a battle, the Battle of Cowpens, Brigadier General Daniel Morgan actually factored in the militiamen's tendency to abandon the battlefield into account when he schose the battlefield and his tactics. He gave orders for the militamen to fire only two or three shots, withdraw and reform, and more importantly made sure there was a river at his back to ensure that the militia did not cut and run.
Another example would be the 'Bladensburg Races' in 1814, when a predominantly militia force faced a professional army on the battlefield. The militamen fled very early in the battle, leaving 400 sailors and Marines to stand and fight a desperate holding action against the British. The result, DC burned.
So I don't really know where you get this idea anyone in government seriously takes into account the armed citizenry into account when they make governmental decisions. Basing your argument for the 2nd Amendment on old fashion notions and ideals, that have not held up when tried, is probably not the best tactic.