Repeating this rubric does us a disservice. The vast majority of gun controllers are well-meaning, but misguided, people. Maybe they're "useful idiots," but still, it's hard to find any would-be dictators in the background, pulling their strings. Even Mike Bloomberg is not much of a would-be dictator. As for George Soros, well, now we're venturing into tin-foil territory.
That said, the gun-control debate is a veneer over a deeper layer of social antipathy. Many of the "well meaning" gun controllers are coastal elites, suburbanites, academics, media mavens, etc., who absolutely hate the "rednecks" who inhabit "flyover country." They conflate gun owners with the social groups that they dislike. Guns are a convenient stand-in for general social polarization. In that sense, then, the gun issue is about social control -- about who controls the culture -- but it's not about a narrowly defined tyranny or political dictatorship.
I don't see Australia as having become a dictatorship because of its strict gun control laws. In fact most democracies have Australian-style gun laws, or worse. America is probably unique in the world as being an economically developed democracy with recognized gun rights and a vibrant gun culture. Usually those things don't go together.
