I don't want to get into defending Russel Kirk...
But, if the state restricts how citizens can be armed, is it not taking for itself the monopoly on the use of force a little at a time?

I had another thought as well. It is true that the people can retain the monopoly. But If they remain loyal to the state then one might argue, in effect, that they are the monopoly of force the state retains. However, if their loyalties are outside the state then the state loses even that thread of monopoly.