Well, there you go. Obviously nothing you can learn from that video.
Well, I do wish that woman would get to the point. After 12 minutes, I decided to go work out at the gym.
But here's my beef with her and those who think like her: The 2A as written is obsolete. This is not about killing the king. We threw out the king, and installed in its place a representative government of the people, by the people, with explicit protections for individual rights. We don't need pitchforks and assault weapons to take down our leaders, we have the ballot box. I am offended by this notion that guns secure our freedoms - our Constitution and our traditions of self-government do. When a President or Congress overreaches (like, say, after what Obama did with the ACA), the voters throw the bums out. That's going to be the battleground next year - whether to throw the bums out. I agree that, nowadays, the biased and unprofessional media has their thumb on the scales, but the answer is still not armed insurrection. Our institutions still work.
The 2A protects no natural, individual right. The 2A addresses matters of civil and community defense, from a time when a key role was played by citizen militias. It is obsolete in today's world. The natural right to self defense of person and property is an unenumerated right similar to the individual rights of privacy and self-determination. These are protected by Constitution, to be sure, but there is an ongoing tension between the courts and the legislatures since a sizable portion of the population disagrees with the courts that these rights are in fact protected. If close to half the nation wants to abolish the Constitution's protection for abortion, then I'd think a similar percentage likely wants to abolish the Constitution's protection (by means of Heller) of the individual right to keep a firearm for self protection.
The angst and anger that folks feel has as its source this tension. We are all hypocrites. Rights for me but not for thee. Those who most zealously guard their RKBA are often the first to demand that a woman's right to choose be denied. And those who most zealously guard the woman's choice right see no hypocrisy in demanding laws that would take away a man's right to defend his home and family.
Can a constitutional republic survive when half the country doesn't share the values of the other half? That's the open question, but matters would be helped if both sides could manage to recognize their selfishness.