> This is a shockingly unamerican sentiment to hear

So feeling fear when surrounded by 3 armed guards is "unamerican"?

My questions are why were there 3 in the first place, and why were they armed? Surely that kind of "show of force" could only be justified in response to a credible threat?

If I had to guess what OP is trying to say, what is "american", is that maybe you should have been afraid of the government before it got to this point. Which means it's possible to be better prepared by knowing your rights.

> Surely that kind of "show of force" could only be justified in response to a credible threat?

Justified, of course not, but have you ever encountered bored cops, or bullies? No matter where you go, there are always corrupt individuals, and unfortunately some of them are in positions of authority.

> their a basic and necessary element of free societies

"They're"?

> It used to take months, weeks, or at least days.

Sure. Many things were different in the past. For example: hysterical and paranoid border patrol personnel didn't use to be the norm.

What if I don’t support or defend the Second Amendment? Does that make me unamerican? Should I renounce my citizenship?

I'm not even sure how someone could support or oppose the second amendment. It really doesn't say much (anything?) about personal gun ownership. What people are arguing over is the interpretations through caselaw trying to figure out what this rather ambiguous segment of text was trying to say.

The Supreme Court first ruled in 2008[1] that the right to personal ownership of guns is a valid reading of the 2nd Amendment (devoid of any military/militia purpose -- a departure from previous Supreme Court decisions).

While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment.

So, opposing the second amendment is the only way to effectively oppose the rulings related to it (assuming that's what you want to oppose).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

It would be more accurate to say advocating for a different interpretation of the second amendment. At times, some do advocate for the repeal of an amendment as well, and in that case the "opposed to x amendment" verbiage seems a bit more appropriate. There have been a few groups calling for constitutional conventions in the past few years and I think there are some examples of this there. I don't think actually repealing the second amendment has ever been a remotely mainstream idea in the United States.

> While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment.

The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.

> The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.

Heller was not a change of mind by the supreme court (it ruled on a different matter to previous rulings -- which had explicitly skirted around the problem of civilian ownership of weapons outside of a military context).

However, even if it were a change of mind -- the supreme court changing its rulings is an incredibly rare event because such events question the finality and authority of their decisions.

Hence why I said "the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment" -- because waiting for the supreme court to change their mind about it (while technically possible and sometimes the case) is hardly a useful policy position for a political argument.

Did you swear an oath to uphold the constitution? If so, it is your duty to allow others to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

No.

Then nobody cares if you support or defend the Second Amendment in terms of your being a "true american" or whatever.

The person I replied to originally seemed to be implying that this was somehow a requirement, hence my question.