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But here's my beef with her and those who think like her: The 2A as written is obsolete.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 It is obsolete in today's world.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.
There you go with somehow finding in the Constitution a Right to kill innocents. That supposed Right was fabricated by a handful of judges, and there is NO WAY you will ever convince me that the Founders would have asserted that such a natural Right exists. So, Poppycock.
Now, the Second Amendment wasn't about killing the King, (nor was the Revolution, for that matter.)
What it was about, was resisting tyranny, from any source. Period.
That had just been done magnificently by colonists armed with muskets and rifles with which they were familiar, because they owned them, for the most part. Some of the most significant shots of the war were made by riflemen who knew (and owned) their firearms.
In later conflicts, breech loading firearms, metallic cartridges, lever action repeating rifles, Gatling guns, bolt actions, semiautomatic rifles, machine guns, and finally select fire infantry arms have carried the day, each an improvement in the fight against tyrannical governments--or improvements in technology made by those defending that tyranny. There is no reason to assume that anyone trying to impose tyranny would limit themselves to single shot rifles, but instead, they will use whatever best technology is available to them.
Therefore, the best available technology should be available to resist that tyranny.
No one ever said the Second Amendment was about duck hunting, or even just self defense unless they are misguided as to the intent of the Amendment. Those are such fundamental Rights, the founders would not have even mentioned the possession of arms for such mundane causes--it was assumed that all knew they had the right to hunt for food, and to defend themselves against marauders of any stripe.
The purpose was so every man (and woman) could resist tyrannical forces, regardless of that source, and for that reason the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was enshrined as sacrosanct. This was and is a Right reserved to the People, and not to be infringed by the machinations of government, which have been many already.
There comes a point where no more ground can be given in the cause of compromise, where any more is to accept the very tyranny which the enumeration of the Right exists to resist.
Tyrannical governments and those who would impose them have not gone away, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Today's totalitarians cloak their aims in the guise of everything from protecting children to saving the planet, and while their approach may be more subtle than just marching troops down the street, their aim is no less a tyrannical government.
Thus it remains, and being able to resist tyranny is more relevant than ever.
Never in the history of humanity have so many been exterminated by tyrants as in the last century, and frankly, that shows no signs of just going away.
