Do people have a right to resist officers with arms? Of course not, so it is surprising to see frequent claims to the contrary. If there ever was a question, it was settled by the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 when President Washington found it necessary to call up the militia to enforce tax law. Another instance is the bonus march of 1932, some 15000 strong, which was dispersed by the army commanded by General MacArthur. The more recent doomed attempt by persons linked to Cliven Bundy to resist Federal Authority is yet another example.
Why then do persons believe the Second Amendment gives them the right to resist authority? Irresponsible political advertising may encourage such craziness. Is there another explanation?
http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/
http://www.ushistory.org/us/48c.asp
New NY 23rd 
What some may be missing is stated in the Constitution in Article One, Section 8, which explains the term “Militia”.
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia. and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States……”
In keeping with the term “Militia” above – comes the Second Amendment ….A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
LikeLike