However, her veto is only symbolic as the prime minister's Georgian Dream party has enough members in parliament to override it by holding another vote.
Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.
The Battle of Athens is probably the most uniquely clear-cut example of what you're asking for, unless we count the American Revolutionary War itself.
Other successful examples mostly involve activists using non-violent protest to push for change, while using firearms to protect themselves from violent reactionaries that would otherwise murder them. Notably, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. For a modern example, there's various "John Brown Gun Clubs" and other community defense organizations providing security at LGBTQ events against fascist groups that seek to terrorize event-goers.
It's also worth noting that resistance is often worthwhile even if it doesn't result in unqualified victory. For example, the Black Panthers' armed cop-watching activities saved a lot of Black folks from brutal beatings at the hands of the police, even if the organization was eventually crushed by the federal government.
I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.
It sounds like you might be in a bit of a filter-bubble. I don't mean any offense by this, it's a normal thing that tends to happen to people. If the news sources you read and the people you talk to don't mention these things because it doesn't mesh with their worldview, how would you hear about them?
Strong gun control requires a police state, and it's advocates are okay with this. Some of them (mostly suburbanites and the like) just imagine that that police state will never be directed against them.
Others are capitalists that actively want to inflict a police state on the rest of us, for their own benefit. It's a lot easier to break strikes and enforce "work discipline" when the working class is disarmed.
Bitcoin block 841,308 (most recent as I'm writing this) is 1,615,771 bytes and has 3,148 transactions, for an average transaction size of ~513 bytes.
Because a Monero transaction is about one and a half to two kilobytes
So yeah, about 3 to 4 times as large as an average Bitcoin transaction.
Keep in mind we have dynamic block scaling so that the blocks will get larger as more transactions come in.
That's not a scaling solution, though. Larger blocks provide throughput at the expense of decentralization, since fewer people will run full nodes as resource usage increases. Eventually it gets to the point where it becomes feasible for a government to track down and compromise all the remaining node operators.
It seems like lightning service providers may very well be considered money transmitters
Not sure how much this would matter. Lightning wallets don't care whether their channel partners are registered money transmitters, or just some rando operating through TOR or in a permissive jurisdiction. In the case of Samourai, taking down the backend rendered the wallet useless. Taking out a lightning node just temporarily inconveniences users that were connected to them.
Monero may be a good option for some individual users right now, but it isn't a long-term solution for bringing financial privacy to the masses. That pretty much has to be done through Bitcoin wallets with privacy features. Bitcoin is already criticized for not scaling well, but Monero is far worse. If I remember correctly, Monero transactions are roughly 4 times as large as Bitcoin transactions, and they don't have any way to do off-chain transactions the way Bitcoin can with Lightning.