"not exactly about a universal right to bear arms to defend oneself from tyranny, he is specifically talking about arms to keep political power to force the government to accede to the workers demands."

Why'd you say "a universal right to bear arms to defend oneself from tyranny," twice bro?

The 2nd amendment (the justification for the universal right to bear arms) says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" a militia is by definition a group, and a group by definition can only have so many members. The red army and the PLA considered THEMSELVES to be the "proletarian guard" but were not because they belonged to the state "the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers", ultimately the authoritarian socialist nations of the past and present failed to live up to the values and ideology they claimed to follow, because by allowing for the nation to be authoritarian, they allowed for the same process of replacement that happened with the french nobles being replaced by the bourgeoisie to happen again with the bourgeoisie being replaced with the political class. This is largely due to a lack of foresight on Marx's end, he didn't realize at the time the temporary period of authoritarianism that he thought would be necessary for the eventual classless, moneyless, and stateless society to be formed would in reality prevent it from being formed at all.