[deadmetheny]

I explicitly addressed this.

>the government is no longer legitimate if that threshold is broken

The 2nd Amendment exists because the writers of the US Constitution had just finished overthrowing a government they did not believe represented the people, and wanted to ensure that if the replacement government ever ceased to represent the will of the people, that the people would have the means to forcibly remove it.

[dragonwriter]

No, it was written largely because the writers of the Constitution were in the process of dealing with the imminent collapse of a central government that had proven incapable of dealing with pressing security problems, and assuring states that the new central government with greater authority would not use that authority to hamstring the states in the event that it, too, was not competent in that regard was important.

They had also, several years before, been involved in the state (formerly colony) governments’ acting collectively to rebel against an unrepresentative (by simple fact that the people were not, directly or by the intermediary of representation of their local government in the central one, represented; this was not a matter of feeling) central government, and, sure, preserving the states’ capacity to do that in the event that the federal government became unresponsive or overbearing was a consideration.

The 2nd Amendment is unique in having an explicit statement of purpose, which for some reason those who claim to be it's Forrest defenders always ignore.

[dragonwriter]

Missed the edit window, but “Forrest” should be “foremost”.

Mobile keyboard autocorrect is fun.

[komali2]

Ok, let me take a different angle - you say there is a "threshold."

Cliven Bundy has decided the threshold has been passed and instigates armed resistance in Nevada. Is the US government no longer legitimate and is allowed to be overthrown wholesale?