We are discussing your assertion that due to the Second Amendment, an armed populace has "reminded" the American government that its use of force is "a bad idea" on multiple occasions.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the capacity of a "well regulated militia" to commit armed violence "in defense of a free state." Resistance and protest which does not involve armed violence against the state by definition is not relevant to discussions about the effectiveness the Second Amendment. This is not adding a "new qualifier," it's merely taking the intent of the Second Amendment seriously.
>Armed citizens, be they ineffective & disorganized, were enough to dissuade heavy handed gov't tactics for a long time - lest effective & organized arise.
This is an assumption on your part which willfully ignores evidence to the contrary. You're like Batman, thinking the bat costume works because "criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot", only with guns and the government.
Until you can actually prove that the government - which has been militarizing and becoming more aggressive since 9/11, mind you, not less, and which shoots unarmed civilians in the streets in broad daylight with impunity and often gets commended by the gun community for doing so - has changed its tactics out of fear of an armed populace and an effective uprising, I'm going to consider further conversation to be fruitless.