speaking from and about the usa:

Iogistics wins wars, and that's true for revolutions too. Small arms ownership is not going to be an operative variable for revolution in the west. It's likely wise on an individual level to have access to some sort of force equalizer for personal and community defence, though

that's talking tactics, though, and your question is about embracing the idea. There are two potential benefits to doing so as far as messaging: (1) differentiate ourselves from dems/libs, (2) dispell the perception of marginalized groups as soft targets.

regarding (1), I'm not sure it's a winning strategy at this point. the libertarian ideology of the '10s that it was well-suited for radicalizing leftward has largely been subsumed and digested into various strains of fascism. maybe there's an argument that there should be leftist presence in pro-gun discourse so it isn't wholly ceded to the right. but I don't think it's a key issue worth focusing on nor is pro-gun as a category/demographic worth trying to specifically radicalize.

Politically, those who are feeling disenchanted with the republican party are being targeted by the rightward-bound dems, who have a million times our resources and media influence. We'll have much more success catering our messaging towards disenchanted dems and disenfranchized liberals.

similarly, economically, the hypermarginalized (immigrant and prison labor, wage workers, unemployed, unhoused; especially as these intersect with racial and gsm demos) have the most need for revolution and have immediate and material issues to organize around, rather than an abstract notion of some right to own guns.

(2), sometimes (not always!) a show of force works as deterrence. Fascists tend to be cowards. It can also have an unintended consequence of drawing the attention of the state and legitimizing suppression. A tactic to use carefully.