If (X), then (ridiculous claim with no evidence)?

Hi, so I saw this post on Facebook, stating:

 "If you've been actively voting for anti-gun politicians, you have no footing to criticize gun owners when we don't swoop in to save you from the situation you put yourself in. You're a massive hypocrite if you've even implied that gun owners should be taking up arms against the government in Portland."

My issue, I suppose, is that these people probably don't exist (people who are simultaneously anti-gun and asking pro-gun people to defend them from the police - not merely people who were anti-gun and have since changed their mind, he clarified) and the poster provided no evidence of them, aside from a few memes calling-out the hypocrisy of second-amendmenters for not taking up arms against oppressive government forces, which he insisted were "passive-aggressively" a literal call to arms 

Also, he claimed that it wasn't hypocritical of second amendmenters to refuse to help anti-gun people (I saw no evidence of them actually asking for help) because those people want to (democratically) take away his guns, and might possibly achieve that in the future, making *them* the oppressors. Even though they would only (hypothetically) be doing so via the police anyway.

So yeah, I get that it's a many-layered trifle of stupidity, but... specifically, why? I suppose I'm kinda concerned that it had a lot more "likes" than laugh reacts, which kinda makes me question my own sanity, and the sanity of people more generally

I see this mostly as a Strawman Fallacy . As you pointed out, there aren't many (any?) anti-gun activists begging gun owners to do what... shoot the feds? I see this as a pro-gun advocates fantasy... kind of like the scene in A Christmas Story where Ralphie daydreams about saving his anti-Red Rider parents with his Red Rider carbine action BB gun (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LgEvQuyDxE).