[abduhl]

During the start of the coronavirus pandemic Minnesota enacted a stay at home order. Protestors arrived at the governor’s residence armed with guns after the lockdown order was extended. The stay at home order was modified to be less restrictive THAT DAY by the governor. He claimed that the modification was unrelated, but everybody knows that’s not true.

[hackyhacky]

So you're saying that rather than communicating our will to our elected officials with ballots and phone calls, we should use the threat of violence against them?

Great idea, let's apply it in other contexts. Next time I get a parking ticket, I'll follow around the traffic cop with an assault rifle until they lower the fee.

[abduhl]

The GP asked “How does private gun ownership check the government?” The government of Minnesota was checked by private gun owners in 2020.

You may think that waiting to vote at the ballots or having your phone calls dumped to a voicemail and never returned is an appropriate response to being locked up in your own house against your will with the threat of state action if you leave; however, a few people in Minnesota did not think that it was appropriate. So they showed up and they showed up armed.

That’s their right and it’s the right the second amendment protects. You may not like it, but that’s just because you haven't disagreed with the government hard enough yet.

[hackyhacky]

> The government of Minnesota was checked by private gun owners in 2020.

Sure, if by "checked" you mean "threatened with violence." My comment is intended to question whether or not that's a good idea, by attempting to applying the same principle to other walks of life.

> being locked up in your own house against your will with the threat of state action if you leave

You mean the usual way of dealing with the outbreak of a deadly contagious disease?

> That’s their right and it’s the right the second amendment protects.

Threats are not protected.