Are you too fvcking stupid to read what I wrote about that? Sure you have the theoretical right. Have fun with that.Sorry, I didnt realize you were still too busy claiming that the intent of the 2nd amendment now doesnt realistically apply to defending against the government. Unfortunately, history itself provides us with two hard facts regarding this:
1. If our forefathers shared your attitude, they'd have agreed with you and never dared to fight back against a larger, more regulated and armed British government.
2. Since they were not pussies, fought back, and won...one of the first things they did was write an amendement to a document that would ensure the right to do exactly what they had just done "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
What you forget is that the government you claim citizens can simply not defend itself against has one force to strongarm the citizens with and that is their army. The army is composed of those same citizens that we are talking about and they take an oath to defend the consitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. This includes the government itself.
So while personal protection is the most commonly used part of this basic right, the ability to defend against the government was, is and will continue to be the cornerstone of what the 2A is about. Without it , everything else in that document is just a lick and a promise. Do you really want to be like the poor folks in the UK, completely pussified and made into victims-waiting-to-happen by their government?
Go exercise it, so that you get your head blown off and I don't have to read your stupid **** again.