>So.. what exactly would I do as an individual if say- Russia- decided to invade my house here in Hamilton?
>The premise that an American can take armed action as an individual against THE or A government is absurd and dangerous, regardless of Rachel's foibles.
>Rambo is one of my all time favorite movies, but it's a fantasy and some people can't figure that out.

First, interesting you'd use the word "foibles". To quote Mack from Night Court, "That's like saying the man in the Elephant Man movie had a little puffiness in his face." This is a network that falsely claimed George Wallace was a Republican, and edited 911 tapes to try to make George Zimmerman out to be a racist. Maddow also accused Ernst of "threatening to turn to armed violence against the government if she doesn’t get what she wants". You call these foibles? It's pure dishonesty - even worse than the stuff from the Fox News Network that you've called out.

Second, "a" government is a more abstract statement that (as one person stated) can refer to a future tyrannical government or a foreign government.

In the grandest irony of all - years ago Dianne Feinstein herself got a conceal-carry permit when she felt (understandably) that her family's life was in peril at the hands of the New World Liberation Front. You and I both know that guerrilla movements often have backings from foreign dictatorial government militias. So why didn't Rachel Maddow also lampoon Di-Fi as well?

You know that I am not religious, but surely you acknowledge that the founding Fathers had mixed premises in terms of religion and philosophy - and that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are partly (but still profoundly) influenced by the Torah / Talmud / Roman Catholic doctrine (St Thomas Aquinas) / and Protestant Doctrines. All of those discuss a context of individuals having a personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government..

Yes, I acknowledge that if the day comes where what Ernst describes is necessary, it's a very unfortunate day. No person who wants peace should fantasize about such a day. Even with my strong opposition to the current administration and the one prior and the slow abrogation of individual rights, I certainly don't forsee the need to arm myself directly against the U.S. government.

However - and I ask you and everyone to hear this carefully - I think a potentially greater and more immediate threat is from the folly of this administration regarding DHS, immigration enforcement, and ISIS.

If you do a bit of digging and research the FBI meeting at the U.S. Consulate in Juarez to define a "press strategy" over the Judicial Watch findings of ISIS cells and their use of Cartel "coyotes" south of the Mexican border - and then couple that with the administration's pathetic actions during the ATF "Fast and Furious" operation that left a U.S. border patrol guard dead (and hundreds of Mexican citizens shot), you can see why some people might want some extra protection when their own government is becoming incompetent. The early release of illegal immigrant felons in 2013 to "broadcast" the supposed effects of sequestration show just how far a government will go (endangering lives of citizens) to make a political point (and in this instance, a very bad one) should give you further cause to contemplate what I'm talking about.