I think we have done well over the years. Recognizing and discussing the actual implications and meaning of the 2A is not the same as advocating for armed rebellion or criminal actions. It may cause the overly jingoistic chaotic spasms that how dare anyone discuss the right to overthrow or resist the government. The same way a discussion of the right to resist arrest even to taking a life of the officer, isn't actually advocating killing officers. My hope is that education and an awareness of these rights along with other rights and the not throwing anyone under the bus and demonizing those who attempt to exercise these fundamental rights would lead to a peaceful restriction of the state back to their proper place.
"Overly jingoistic chaotic spasms" eh? Cute. I suppose the other side of that coin is the anxiously rebellious, traitors, and provocateurs.
But let's avoid potential insults and go ahead and talk about rebellion and resisting the government, shall we? Not to encourage it of course, but to discuss it.
First of all, there can be no doubt that the 2nd Article of Amendment to the US Constitution is the teeth in the inherent power of the people to protect their rights with force if needed. Our nation is founded on the self-evident truth, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Of course, in the same breath, we also believe that,
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Having stated the principle, let's look at the reality shall we? How has rebellion worked out?
The 1776 rebellion lead to 8 years of horrific struggles, bloodshed, and privations. In 1883, our founding fathers managed to win the war and begin living under their new government formed during the Revolution, The Articles of Confederation. But only 6 years later, the Articles gave way to the federal Constitution. Methinks that many who like to discuss the "theory" of armed resistance consider the adoption of the federal constitution to be a major infringement of individual rights.
The French Revolution was a major failure beyond any need to even discuss.
The War Between the States that started in South Carolina was certainly a great try. And the revolutionaries did far better than any student of war would have predicted given the massive advantage held by northern States in terms of population, manufacturing, miles of railway lines, etc. But, Lincoln couldn't buy himself a decent general and so the Confederacy held on bravely for 4 years, resisting Northern tyranny of unjust tariffs, hoping that King Cotton would bring Great Britain or other European allies into the war on their side. But, Lincoln and the abolitionists managed to make the War about slavery and in the end, the Southern States were decimated, their infrastructure left in ruin, their economy in shambles, and the entire premise of States being able to withdraw from the Union as freely as they had joined utterly destroyed. It was 80 years (post WWII) before the South really recovered from the War. Even then, sadly, the overt racism of Jim Crow (perhaps, arguably the effects of Reconstruction), lead to another, mini-rebellion of sorts:
The Civil Rights movement resulted in complete elimination of all regard of federalism or "States rights". Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard and literally standing in the doorway of the school house to prevent racial integration resulted in the President sending in the 101st Airborne to enforce Supreme Court rulings to end racially segregated schools. To this day, some 50 years later, any mention of "States rights" or a notion that the States might protect their people from federal over-reach is countered very successfully by those who point to the racist use of such powers by the members of the former Confederacy. Failed rebellions cost future generations as well as the unfortunate souls who wage them.
Texas managed to win independence from Mexico, but then pretty quickly threw in with the United States, then the Confederacy, then with the USA again.
The Czar was a tyrant and certainly the Russian people were justified in armed rebellion. Nobody but Sudden Valley Gunner needs to be reminded of how that worked out, but let's just call it 100 million innocent civilians murdered worldwide since the Russians made the horrible mistake of trading an uncaring Czar for the godless communists. Most revolutions since that time seem to be poor people demanding more goodies at the expense of the rich, oftentimes with communists or radical muslims deftly guiding useful idiots to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
The '67 incident in the Cali Legislature with the Black Panthers has resulted in nearly 50 years of horrible gun laws in a State once known for having pretty decent regard for the individual RKBA. The recent incident in Washington is portending similar problems for gun owners.
Admittedly, the Bundy Ranch incident last year may be small success for armed resistance. But time will tell whether that victory is fleeting or lasting. The '46 "Battle of Athens" in Tennessee worked out ok.
But in general? Armed rebellion doesn't often fair well. It is almost as if the cause must be very just and those engaged in it must be able to control the message such that their cause remains just in the minds of the larger population. And then they must be very careful to avoid falling under worse government than what they have left.
Simply put, it starts to look like the theory of citizen armed rebellion has a bit in common with the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): both act as a deterrent to the other side behaving too badly, but both promise such horrible outcomes that no sane, thinking person would actually pull the trigger preemptively. In other words, armed rebellion is not something to even consider until such time as political activism is indisputably no longer available.
So sure, let's discuss the real intent of the 2nd amendment. But let's do so honestly and with some real thought to how it most often works out, rather than as a cheap cover to avoid violation of rules.
Charles