Part of the purpose of the second amendment is to protect us against a government gone rogue.
This is a widely held belief among politically active gun owners--The argument is in defining rogue.
We've got the "three percenters" who think the current government is already rogue, and promise to respond to confiscation of their guns with armed resistance. The name comes from a claim that around 3% of gun owners will refuse to comply with a gun ban, to the point of armed resistance if necessary.
On the other hand, there are the people who say that Ruby Ridge and Waco prove that you can't stand up to the government, it will inevitably crush you.
Armed revolt is the nuclear option--its primary benefit is in deterrence. The balance of power is important--Small groups should not be able to stand against the government, but the government should not be able to stand against a majority who oppose it. The key here is majority. In order for armed revolt to be an honorable option, the government needs to have tampered with the election process severely enough that a majority voting for someone else isn't enough to unseat an incumbent. Corruption, Hanging chads, butterfly ballots, incumbent franking privelege are nowhere near severe enough.
Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to due process and to bear arms are all meant to work together to prevent such abuse by the government.