>This probably would have gone down differently had the occupants not been armed.

I don't know, being armed didn't help at Waco or Ruby Ridge. Maybe there were other factors at play in the government's behavior than simply being afraid of an armed group?

It's not just fear by officials of being shot (although that certainly is a factor, i.e police "no-go zones" controlled by gangs. As opposed to single unarmed minority motorists who can be bullied with impunity.).

It's also threat of public blowback from armed firefights leading to uncomfortable "why?" questions and detailed examinations of policies and the details of what happened.

Ass covering bureaucrats hate that. It could affect the pension.

Gov’t was dissuaded from such tactics for long after those & similar instances.

...but not by an effective, armed resistance. So not because the Second Amendment worked as advertised.

Stop adding qualifiers. Armed citizens, be they ineffective & disorganized, were enough to dissuade heavy handed gov't tactics for a long time - lest effective & organized arise.

We are discussing your assertion that due to the Second Amendment, an armed populace has "reminded" the American government that its use of force is "a bad idea" on multiple occasions.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the capacity of a "well regulated militia" to commit armed violence "in defense of a free state." Resistance and protest which does not involve armed violence against the state by definition is not relevant to discussions about the effectiveness the Second Amendment. This is not adding a "new qualifier," it's merely taking the intent of the Second Amendment seriously.

>Armed citizens, be they ineffective & disorganized, were enough to dissuade heavy handed gov't tactics for a long time - lest effective & organized arise.

This is an assumption on your part which willfully ignores evidence to the contrary. You're like Batman, thinking the bat costume works because "criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot", only with guns and the government.

Until you can actually prove that the government - which has been militarizing and becoming more aggressive since 9/11, mind you, not less, and which shoots unarmed civilians in the streets in broad daylight with impunity and often gets commended by the gun community for doing so - has changed its tactics out of fear of an armed populace and an effective uprising, I'm going to consider further conversation to be fruitless.

No, the 2ndA reads as "DESPITE the existence of a well [gov't] regulated military, the people may nonetheless own military weapons". This written shortly after the author wrote (paraphrased) "despite having strong militaries, European countries are terrified of armed citizens".

Your "with impunity" reference is not couched in reality.

Good luck holding to your narrative. Reality differs.