which should come first?
For your country there's almost no chance of appealing through the courts. If a minority could ever band together well enough for a movement toward further independence to be sustainable, there's a (strong) chance the government will overreact, potentially garnering sympathy for your cause. Eventually you're going to need weapons to have any hope of gaining international backing, so try to delay any attack on your citizenry's armament infrastructure until you've ascertained that it's protected legally. It doesn't need to be in your home, but it needs to be secure, efficiently accessible. Assuming you have the moral fortitude at some point you're going to have to draw a hard line and watch as your adversaries show their true colors. You can never trust someone who doesn't expect people to be both decent and empowered. What ensues next will probably be awful. Once the members of high government are satisfied with the amount of pain and suffering they've inflicted upon your people, and assuming you've won a settlement, then there's a chance we can talk about getting a hold on "offensive/assault weapons".
As to which weapons should come first, I can't contend to have the answers for every social situation throughout the world. The police are armed in anticipation of the situations faced by the most vulnerable minorities within their jurisdiction. They are common civilians, and their job is not to carry a gun. It is to bring people to justice. What is considered reasonable by them to utilize is one of the most profound endorsements observed in society, in my opinion.
