Right to bear arms against Tyranny

*Okay so, the definition of Tyranny is a “cruel or oppressive” government/rule.

The definition of cruel is “willfully causing pain and suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it”.

The definition of oppression is “prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority”.*

So, the right to bear arms against Tyranny entitles me to:

1) Own a weapon (US interpretation of this includes Gun but not Nuclear/Chemical/Radiological).

2) Use that weapon against a government that is acting Tyrannically.

The second is implied, right? Or is the right to bear arms only the right to own a weapon, and not the right to use it, in your view?

My two primary questions relating to this though, are:

1) Is this a collective right – I.e. must a majority of the population agree that this is Tyranny which you have the right to bear arms against?

2) Or is this an individual right where citizens themselves have the right to decide on ownership and excercise of their right against perceived Tyranny?

In the second instance, does this not entitle anyone to shoot anyone so long as that person has imposed a rule, is trying to make you do something you don’t want to do, and is in your view “acting Tyrannically”?

In the first instance, what stops the PoC community in the US simply taking up arms collectively against the government, given US racial oppression?

I don’t feel like the logic behind gun ownership here fits with modern day social realities.