Originally Posted by
Subby
Where they are used passively, such as in the Bundy standoff, they do not result in change beyond the individual level. Did the actions of Cliven Bundy stop the federal government from taking grazing fees, or change it's behaviour in any way? Passive use of guns, at best, results in conserving a small island, whether physical or ideological. Government cannot be constrained by specific scenarios such as this, it must be constrained conceptually. In this instance prevented from taking grazing fees or seizing private property in all instances. Aka the constitution and bill of rights.