It is unlikely that direct, physical confiscation of guns will be used by the government in the foreseeable future. A far better way to control firearms and their owners will be to tax guns and ammunition out of sight. Taxes and similar 'civil' penalties are always the first line of attack of the 'democratic tyrants' of history. But there is a down side to that method: While hurting pocketbooks is always a good way to coerce, it is also a good way to build deep dissatisfaction with government, as the Brits found in the latter 18th Century. Once that dissatisfaction builds to the boiling point, things have a way of taking on a life of their own.
To argue that resistance is a Bad Thing because one has friends who are LEOs and would only be 'doing their job' is an argument that was pretty discredited at Nuremburg. We all make choices. Those who would make the choice to disarm their fellow citizens at the orders of a tyrannical government probably do not deserve such friendly consideration. Also, to say that we should bury our guns for a time 'when they would really be needed' seems confusing to me. When would they be needed MORE? Someone once said that if it was time to bury them is was a better time to use them. YMMV.
Finally, 'kool-aid drinker' originally referred to the popularity of the beverage in the 60s as a carrier for LSD. In this sense it refers to delusional, usually liberal, pie-in-the-sky politics such a 'flower power.' Later it came to be associated with the Rev. Jim Jones who induced his expatriate flock in Guyana to kill themselves and their children using poisoned kool aid. In this sense it refers to people who are so willing to be controlled that they will do whatever they are told by their leaders. Neither reference has anything to do with race. Ironically, to say that it does has tinges of racism itself, as such an accusation would seem to imply that kool aid drinkers belong to a particular race or ethnic group.