Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Your favorite example of armed patriots defeating tyranny in US History (post 1789)
YellowSnow
Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,415 
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Your favorite example of armed patriots defeating tyranny in US History (post 1789) 14 votes
Whiskey Rebellion 1791 - 1794
14%
2 votes
Frie's Rebellion 1799- 1800
0%
Harper's Ferry Raid 1859
7%
1 vote
Civil War 1861-65
7%
1 vote
Battle of Liberty Place 1874
0%
Green Corn Rebellion 1917
0%
Wounded Knee Incident 1973
7%
1 vote
Occupation of Malheur national Wildlife Refuge 2016
14%
2 votes
Write-in Option
50%
7 votes
Comments
Case closed.
End of discussion.
That affected me.
In short, a "well-regulated militia."
First, consider the powers of Congress over the Militia:
Article One
Section 8
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Next, consider the powers of the President over the Militia:
Article Two
Section 2
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
Therefore, taking everything in the preceding discussion into consideration, that is the role of militias in the early history of the United States, including both before the Revolutionary War as well as the experiences of George Washington et al with the colonial militia during the War, and then also the parallels between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution regarding the definition, role, and functioning of the militia, I think it safe to say that the following interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is from an Originalist perspective, stands on fairly firm ground:
The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!
“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)
But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)
In other words, the use of the term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment wasn’t meant to be an ‘either-or’, ‘black-and-white’ proposition, it was meant to be an all-inclusive term that covered all possible aspects of the situation viz a viz militias.