I said no right to engage in armed rebellion against the U.S. Gov’t because you don’t like laws passed by Congress that the courts have held to be constitutional. The Founders asserted the right of people who could not elect their own government to institute a new one which they could elect.
It’s ridiculous to claim that the Founders assertion of a right to end their control by the British under those circumstances was a blanket endorsement of a right of any minority to engage in an armed rebellion against their own elected government.
The sentiments in the Declaration of Independence were never intended as a blank check authorization for anyone to engage at any time in an armed rebellion against an elected U.S. government, as the participants in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 quickly learned.
If you want to alter the U.S. government then there’s a process for that which starts with winning elections. If you can’t win elections you’re not entitled to use a gun to impose your vision of how things should work on the people who did win the elections.
As long as this country is run in accordance to the Constitution you ONLY have the right to resort to the electoral process, not guns, that’s WHY we rebelled against Britain in the first place and formed a country dedicated to the principles of democratic and constitutional government instead of one where the government is imposed by the force of arms by the people who lost the election.
FYI, the militias which the 2nd Amendment was enacted to facilitate were created “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions.” (Article I, Section 8) not to conduct insurrections themselves.