[NeroASERCH]

You are partially right, but you are thinking about it the wrong way, IMO.
If the state had targeted someone and was coming directly after him, specifically, and sent a SWAT team or a small army to hunt him down, then you are right. Having a few guns would not make much of a difference. He would end up dead or captured sooner or later.
But when applied to society as a whole, the outcome is different. If the population was well armed and willing to use force, then things like the pre-WWII secret police kidnapping Jews in the middle of the night in Germany would be a lot more difficult to pull off. It wouldn't just be hiding in your house hoping the police don't come for you and knowing that if they do then you won't be heard from again. The police would be vulnerable. Maybe they can kill or kidnap you if they are really determined, but they would also take casualties. They are no longer able to just decide to take somebody and do so with impunity. They are now risking their lives in order to do so, and that makes them think twice before going to someone's house and taking them. And in the case of something as widespread as my example, entire neighborhoods of potential victims could join together and attempt to defend each other. Instead of things being completely one sided where the government does whatever it wants and kidnaps and kills whoever it wants, there is a potential civil war where both sides have casualties, instead of just one. Civil war is never really a good thing, but as an alternative to the Holocaust, it kind of is. Additionally, just knowing that attempting something like that might start a civil war might be enough to prevent the government from even trying it in the first place.
Imagine, for a second, how it would go. It wouldn't just be shootouts in people's homes when the government came to take them away. The police would be prepared for that. It would also be things like police officers getting killed when standing in line to buy groceries. It wouldn't be safe for them to ever go out in public. They wouldn't know if the person they are standing next to is just a complete stranger or is some guy who's going to kill them the second they look away. People would look up their addresses, and the police and government officials wouldn't even be safe in their own homes.
In your scenario where it's one person vs. the government, you're right that it would be bad for that one person. When it's most of society vs. the government, though, things are different. If the government is so bad and the cause so good that the people are determined to fight, then having a well armed populace really can make a difference.

[softy54534]

"You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

Absolutely disgusting. I'm embarrassed to call myself British.

[Slonopotam845]

I'm not embarrassed to call myself British. I'm embarrassed to recognise my government is British. I have no shame for being associated with the land or the people of Britain, but the government is certainly becoming something to be ashamed of.

[S.T.D.]

Now you know how a lot of us in the US feel when we take the heat from the world for our government's actions. We (the citizens) are everyday people just like you struggling to get by.

[Beerinkol]

I've always isolated government and citizens as separate entities. Even then I believe there are good people in most governments trying to make good things happen, but caught up in a system larger than themselves. In truth it's hard to find someone to blame but what's clear is there are actions being carried out by the governments right now that, at least in my opinion, need to be put right.

[Ifroham4]

In truth it's hard to find someone to blame but what's clear is there are actions being carried out by the governments right now that...

are not the peoples will
What the hell is the point of Government if not to execute the will of the people? This has gone too far. You're absolutely right. Shit must be put right.

[tgs]

The truth is, without having much knowledge of the actual system, I'm presuming this was the decision of a select few, sat in a meeting room trying to decide what would be best for the country. The problem the time it would take to get a public opinion on security issues would probably be too much time in order to make the security measures effective. What upsets me is that nobody in the government has spoken out against these actions and based on the lack of coverage of this from the media/the BBC in England I would presume they're potentially advocating the actions. Now that I find disturbing.

[NeroASERCH]

We (the citizens) are everyday people just like you struggling to get by.

That was probably said by citizen in every dictatorship ever.

[brraverishhh]

I dont know anyone who has been represented by the current us regime. no congress no judicial and certainly not executive. Its easy to see were under control of a police state.

[9mm_fan]

A corporate-controlled police state, at that. It's just sociopaths all the way down.

[Fegasderty]

My respect for The Guardian only increases when I read this kind of story.
This reaction clearly shows the press is getting to them and it's annoying them grievously.
Just imagine for a moment what they would be doing if they were in Russia or in another country where 'freedom' is something they put on the sticker but they don't really mean it to mean 'actual freedom'. If they already come to intimidate an editor, what would they be doing if they knew they could get away with it?
This kind of reporting is an essential to keep society be as free as possible. In fact, if the US media had done their job these last 15 years, it would never have come as far as it has now, because there would have been a lot more light on what the government is doing and they would have understood they couldn't just come up with any kind of bullshit they invent during their secret meetings.
Bravo The Guardian!