Strange, every time I walk outside my door, I carry a handgun that I consider to be superior to the ones almost all police have (a M1911), using a license issued by the local sheriff ... I don't recall any prison or "true police state" that allows its inmates or subjects to be about as well or better armed than the guards or police, let alone encourages them (which is more of a local thing for me, but is true for many others).
I share this ability with the residents of 42 states who haven't been convicted of felonies or domestic misdemeanors. Last time I checked that was > 2/3rd of the population, and with California (and Hawaii) currently losing a court case this could well become 44 states and ~3/4ths of the population. I trust I needn't mention our right to own serious rifles "of military utility" as well...
There are more aspects to a police state than whether the citizens can possess firearms.
Besides, regardless of your handgun or rifle, the authorities command overwhelming force. They possess and are glad to use grenades, armored vehicles, automatic weapons, shotguns, superior numbers and chemical weapons against citizens when deemed necessary.
There are certainly more aspects, but my point remains, there is no "true police state" where subjects are allowed to keep and bear arms like our's does. (Well, there's exceptions like NYC and D.C. that perhaps prove the rule.) In fact, we RKBA activists know that the history of police states always includes an early period where guns are systematically confiscated from the people. I know for example the basic stories for Nazi Germany, China, Japan (1588!) and Cuba off the top of my head.
As for your latter point, you're assuming two things: someone wanting revenge on the police/government for something unforgivable is going to give a damn about that, and that if things got nasty, the citizens would play by the "rules of war" of the police. Not to mention numbers, we would utterly swamp them if it came down to something like that. Look at how batshit insane California police got when one crazy started hunting them (Christopher Dorner).
What I mean is that while citizens are allowed to possess firearms, the government still has a monopoly on force. Attempting to actually use your firearms in someway unacceptable to them will almost certainly result in your doom. It's sort of like mutually assured destruction, except it's not mutual. I don't think they're worried about loose cannons holding grudges. While individual gun ownership is allowed, or tolerated, the government does not look kindly on forming militias.
If you ponder fictional police states such as 1984, in that situation it doesn't really matter if the citizens have firearms as they're thoroughly brainwashed that they would never use them. And, just like our world, if they did they would be brutally suppressed.
My opinion is that the people of the United States could not and would not stand up effectively to the National Guard, police and military if it came down to such a thing.
I share this ability with the residents of 42 states who haven't been convicted of felonies or domestic misdemeanors. Last time I checked that was > 2/3rd of the population, and with California (and Hawaii) currently losing a court case this could well become 44 states and ~3/4ths of the population. I trust I needn't mention our right to own serious rifles "of military utility" as well...